Category: News

World Watch Monitor reports that Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, has won a landslide victory in the first freely-contested election in 25 years, winning the needed two-thirds of the vote to enable it to nominate the country’s new President.

Even though she herself is barred from that role, Suu Kyi has made it clear she will be closely involved in running the government, though it’s not expected all its members will be announced till next February. She will have to negotiate very carefully with the military, who hold 25% of the seats in Parliament: these were not able to be contested in the election.

Her new government inherits many pressing issues, not least that of the nation’s minorities, including the Rohingya Muslims, but also ethnic groups who are majority Christian, including the Kachin and Chin. Some, such as the Karen, have a sizeable Christian population.

The military government had continued a campaign of oppression against ethnic minorities. Operation World, a Christian missionary organisation, calls Burma “a deeply fractured nation on a political and especially ethnic level”. The conflict zones span thousands of miles along the country’s borders. Some of the world’s longest-running civil wars continue here. These borderlands are where the majority of Burma’s Christians live.

Now Burma’s Christians are cautiously hopeful. World Watch Monitor asked Burmese Christians what the election result will mean for them.

“This election is important for Christians because we have been under dictatorship for over 60 years,” Rev. Dr. Hkalam Samson, General Secretary of Kachin Baptist Convention, said.

“If we have a good government in Burma, Christians may have a chance to share the Gospel publically,” said Rev. Dr. Naing Thang, Director of the Religious Liberty Commission and President of the Reformation Theological Seminary.

“The 2008 Constitution indirectly mentions that Buddhism is the state religion,” Samson added.

“The majority of Christians in Burma are from ethnic minorities. The ethnics [minorities] in Burma live along the country’s borders. We need permission for church buildings in those areas. And we also need special permission for any celebration. If I preach openly in a market or in other areas [outside of the church], they can arrest me, because we are allowed to preach [only] on Sundays [and inside churches].”

“I heard that they [a new Buddhist organisation, the Patriotic Association of Burma, locally known as ‘Ma Ba Tha’ and led by influential Buddhist monks supportive of the ruling party] said ‘double C virus’ is very dangerous for them, and they will try to suppress it. One ‘C’ for their Chin ethnicity, and one ‘C’ for their Christian faith,” said Thang.

Although Aung San Suu Kyi is constitutionally barred from the presidency as she has foreign family members, she has said she will be the “de facto” president. Should Christians be optimistic now?

“I met her in 2012 in Myitkyina [the capital of Kachin state], and I asked her a question: ‘What is your position on the ethnic conflict issue?’” Samson recalled. “And she said it is too early for her to respond. And we had at that time about 100,000 IDPs [internally displaced people, due to attacks by the military]. We wanted her to visit IDPs and say some encouraging words. But she didn’t visit IDP camps. So this kind of an answer and her action doesn’t make us very happy. Ethnic minorities [despite NLD’s rule] may have the same situation as before. We believe that the international community will push our government to focus on the ethnic issue.”
________________________________________

World Watch Monitor also heard from Daniel Ottenberg, analyst at the World Watch Research Unit of Open Doors International, which listed Burma as the 25th most difficult country in the world to live as a Christian.

He explains: “While the very fact that the elections were held undisturbed is encouraging, there are several important caveats to keep in mind which affect religious minorities, including Christians. Firstly, the military still holds 25% of parliamentary seats reserved for it. This means the army will remain the decisive factor determining which political direction the country will steer. Secondly, the clashes with ethnic minorities – among others in Christian Kachin and Shan States – continue unabated, and a solution is still far from visible. Thirdly, the army will still occupy the most influential posts such as Ministry of the Interior, Defence and Border Affairs.”

He continues: “Several hundred thousand ethnic minority votes were excluded from the election process right from the start: the Muslim minority’s citizens’ rights (and hence registration as voters) were denied, and in the case of Christian minorities complete village tracts were excluded from voting due to security issues.

“Finally, it remains to be seen how the increasingly radical Buddhist groups like the Ma Ba Tha will react. They had supported the ruling military-backed party very openly, naming as one reason their support in introducing the Laws on the Protection of Race and Religion in August. Therefore it’s too early to draw conclusions about the full outcome of these elections. While the beginning can be considered encouraging, observers will need to wait patiently, so that – as one observer recently put it – when international media moves on to new stories Burma is not left to sink into oblivion again.”

Lord Alton and Fiona Bruce MP write on Conservative Home that “it is not unreasonable to expect, where aid is being distributed, certain behaviour in terms of treatment of minorities, as well as the need for pluralism, tolerance and diversity. Such an approach can yield both a pragmatic harvest as well as chiming with the very best of “British values”.

“Where these values flourish, extremism can be confounded; where these values wilt, we see the catastrophic driving out of millions of people from their homes. Gross violations of Article 18 conflict with some of the key values our country stands for. However, UK Aid is sadly going to some countries in which violations of Article 18 occur. It is important to understand and challenge this where appropriate, for the very reasons expressed above. Where freedom of thought, belief, or speech are restricted, other human rights violations can follow in their wake – discrimination, persecution, crimes against humanity and even genocide.”

“Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, says that taxpayers’ money should be spent to promote peace, jobs and justice: “leaving no one behind.” Committing to the SDGs, as the UK and 192 other countries did this autumn at the United Nations, means a radical review of how we ‘do aid’. This is therefore a timely opportunity for a fresh consideration of the application of Article 18 in terms of aid provision.”

Snapshot: Pakistan

“So how do we measure the success of such an approach in places like Pakistan? What would we regard as success or failure? How can it be ensured, for example, that funding for education is not being spent on promoting a curriculum that fuels intolerance, or to extremist madrassas that preach hatred?

“This year, our aid programme to Pakistan is £405 million – £1.17 billion since 2011. This is a country where a mob of 1,200 people recently forced two children to watch as their Christian parents were burned alive. Pakistan has imposed a death penalty on a mother of five, Asia Bibi, for so-called blasphemy; it has still to bring to justice the murderers of Shahbaz Bhatti, the country’s Minister for Minorities; and it is a country where churchgoers have been murdered in their pews. This week, as we took evidence from the minorities who have suffered in Pakistan, we heard the story of that country’s one remaining self-professing Jew – from a community which was once numbered in its thousands. Minorities groups —Shias, Ahmadis and Christians—have experienced discrimination and outright persecution. While Pakistan has been receiving vast sums of money, the response from Pakistan, to these concerning issues and incidents, has been indifference, at best,”

Read the full article

People accused of violating Pakistan’s draconian ‘blasphemy laws’ face proceedings that are glaringly flawed, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in a new report published last week.

“Pakistan’s blasphemy laws fly in the face of Pakistan’s international legal obligations, including the duties to respect the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion and belief,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “But even worse, those facing accusations of blasphemy suffer through trials that are often fundamentally unfair.”

In the 60-page report On Trial: the Implementation of Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws, the ICJ has documented in detail systematic and widespread fair trial violations in proceedings related to blasphemy offences in Pakistan, particularly in trial courts.

Some of the problems documented in the report include:

• Intimidation and harassment of judges and lawyers that impede on the independence of the judiciary and the right to a defence;
• Demonstrable bias and prejudice against defendants by judges during the course of blasphemy proceedings and in judgements;
• Violations of the right to effective assistance of counsel;
• Rejection of bail and prolonged pre-trial detention;
• Incompetent investigation and prosecution that do not meet due diligence requirements under the law;
• The prosecution and detention of people living with mental disabilities;
• Inhumane conditions of detention and imprisonment, including prolonged solitary confinement.

Pakistan’s laws on ‘offences related to religion’ – sections 295-298-C of the Penal Code that are commonly known as “blasphemy laws” – include a variety of crimes including misusing religious epithets, “defiling” the Holy Quran, deliberately outraging religious sentiment, and using derogatory remarks in respect of the Prophet Muhammad.

Sentences for these offences range from fines to long terms of imprisonment, and in the case of defamation of the Prophet Muhammad (section 295-C), a mandatory death sentence.

“Section 295 is a relic of the British colonial system that lends itself to human rights violations, including in Pakistan, India, Myanmar, and elsewhere,” Zarifi said. “In Pakistan, General Zia-ul-Haq made additions to the laws that made them truly draconian.”

Based on the analysis of over 100 judgements of the high courts and courts of first instance from 1986-2015 as well as interviews with defendants in blasphemy cases, their families, and defence counsel; judges, lawyers and police officials; and human rights activists, the report found:

• In 19 out of 25 cases under section 295-C (defamation of the Prophet Muhammad) studied by the ICJ, high courts have acquitted individuals convicted for blasphemy by trial courts. Glaring procedural irregularities and mala fide complaints are the grounds for acquittal on appeal in over 80 per cent of cases;
• Even in cases that ultimately result in acquittal, blasphemy proceedings suffer from undue delay – proceedings in trial courts can take on average three years, and appeals can take even longer, more than five years on average;
• Individuals accused of blasphemy under section 295-C are frequently denied bail even though they meet requirements under the law;
• Individuals detained pending trial or convicted for blasphemy are often kept in prolonged solitary confinement, at times, over a number of years.

The report also confirms concerns recently raised by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that individuals accused of blasphemy ‘suffer beyond proportion or repair’, in the absence of adequate safeguards against misapplication or misuse of such blasphemy laws, the Geneva-based organization says.

The ICJ has also made a number of recommendations to the Pakistani executive, legislative and judicial branches to address the defects in the framing of the blasphemy laws as well as of the shortcomings at the investigative, prosecutorial, procedural, administrative and judicial levels highlighted in the report to minimize the misuse of the blasphemy laws and ensure that those accused of blasphemy have a fair chance at defending themselves.

“It’s time Pakistan and other countries got rid of these noxious laws, which continue to stifle freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief, and instead promote extremism and intolerance,” Zarifi added.

We, the undersigned civil society organisations, are concerned that Vietnam’s draft Law on Belief and Religion is inconsistent with the right to freedom of religion or belief.

We call upon the Government to comprehensively revise the draft Law to conform with Vietnam’s obligations under international human rights law in the course of an inclusive consultation process with recognized and independent religion or belief communities within Vietnam and human rights law experts, including the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of religion or belief.

In its current form, the draft Law places limitations on freedom of religion or belief that extend beyond those permitted under international human rights law that is binding on Vietnam.

Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Vietnam is a state party, requires the authorities to ensure that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief is subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary and proportionate to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

While the draft Law purports to acknowledge “the right to freedom of religion and belief” and proclaims that the “government respects and protects the freedom of religion and belief of everyone,” the provisions of the draft Law, if passed, would act as a powerful instrument of control placing sweeping, overly broad limitations on the practice of religion or belief within Vietnam, perpetuating the already repressive situation.

The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Dr. Heiner Bielefeldt, summarised his observations of the situation of religion or belief in Vietnam following a visit to the country in July 2014 saying, “Whereas religious life and religious diversity are a reality in Viet Nam today, autonomy and activities of independent religious or belief communities, that is, unrecognised communities, remain restricted and unsafe, with the rights to freedom of religion or belief of such communities grossly violated in the face of constant surveillance, intimidation, harassment and persecution.”

We note the following concerns, among others, with the draft Law which are illustrative of the many provisions that are inconsistent with Vietnam’s obligations under the ICCPR including the obligation to respect and protect the right to freedom of religion or belief:

I. ONEROUS REQUIREMENTS OF REGISTRATION

The draft Law places onerous requirements of registration on “religious organizations”.

The system of “you request, we may grant” set out in provisions throughout the draft Law demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the government’s role with respect to protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief under international law. As stated by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief in his aforementioned report, the exercise of religious freedom or belief is an universal right which “cannot be rendered dependent on any particular acts of administrative approval”.

II. EXCESSIVE STATE CONTROL OVER AND INTERFERENCE IN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS’ INTERNAL AFFAIRS

The draft Law is marked throughout by provisions that, if adopted, would empower the Government to intrusively monitor and “intervene in the internal affairs and administration” of “religious organizations”.

This takes the form of government interference and control over appointed leadership, pedagogy and content of religious training, as well as unreasonable notification requirements of organizational changes in personnel or bylaws subject to State approval. In addition, a clause stipulating that Vietnamese history and law should be a main subject in training materials allows the authorities to interfere with the content of religious education. These provisions are inconsistent with the requirement under international law that limitations imposed on the right to freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief be strictly necessary and proportionate to one of the aims set out in article 18(3) of the ICCPR.

III. OVERLY BROAD AND AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE WHICH MAY FACILITATE DISCRIMINATION

Cases of discrimination by the State against minorities whose cultural and religious practices are considered to be “outside” the mainstream national narrative are well documented.

The draft Law contains overly broad and ambiguous language that, in addition to the other abuses that frequently arise from imprecision in laws that define the enforcement authority of government entities, could be used to perpetuate discrimination against ethnic and indigenous minorities, independent groups and those whose religion or belief is seen as “foreign” in favour of religious entities recognized by the Communist Party. For example, the draft Law gives the authorities power to suspend religious festivals or delay conferences or congresses in the name of “national defence or security, public order, social order, or public health” and suspend organisations that are deemed to have carried out “forbidden acts,” including causing harm to “national defence and security, public order, and morality.”

At a minimum, restrictions on religious activities that are not among the limitations permitted under Article 18(3) of the ICCPR, such as those designed to preserve “social order” or to prevent ‘sully[ing] the image of national heroes and notables”, must be removed. Other restrictions, such as those deemed necessary to “national defense and security” and “public order”, must be carefully reviewed to ensure both that religious activities are not restricted more rigorously than similar activities conducted for non-religious reasons and that any suspension of a religious festival or delay of a congress or conference is strictly necessary and proportionate to meet one of the permissible aims set out in article 18(3) of the ICCPR.

Furthermore, as recommended by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief in his report concerning his visit to the country last year, “Effective and accessible legal recourse must be prioritized in current legal reforms in order to allow victims, whose freedom of religion or belief have been infringed upon, to obtain effective redress and compensation within an independent judicial system and judiciary”.

In light of these and other concerns about the current draft of the Law, we make the following recommendations to the Government of Vietnam:

1. Revise the draft Law in a manner consistent with Vietnam’s obligations under article 18 of the ICCPR to guarantee absolutely the internal dimension of the right to freedom of religion or belief.
2. Revise the draft Law in a way that ensures that the practice of religion or belief in Vietnam is not conditional upon a process of state recognition, registration and approval.
3. Remove all articles that interfere in the internal affairs and administration of religious organizations including those that prescribe that the content of teachings on religion or belief include Vietnamese history and law.
4. Remove references such as those to “social order” and “sully[ing] the image of national heroes and notables” as reasons for placing limitations on freedom of religion or belief in the draft Law, as well as other language that is inconsistent with Article 18 of the ICCPR.
5. Ensure that any limitations placed on the manifestation of religion or belief comply with Vietnam’s international legal obligations, in particular the permitted limitations as set out in article 18(3) of the ICCPR, and specify that any restrictions on such grounds must be both necessary and proportionate to the particular aim.
6. Remove all overly broad and ambiguous language, including that which could be arbitrarily interpreted and result in discrimination or other violations of human rights against ethnic minority and independent religious or belief groups, and favoritism towards recognized, state-controlled or state-friendly groups.
7. Include in the draft Law a legal framework that sets out effective and accessible legal avenues for victims of discrimination or other violations of human rights to obtain remedies and reparation in accordance with international law and standards.
8. Ensure the draft Law is also consistent with Vietnam’s obligations under the ICCPR to guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and privacy.
9. Explicitly guarantee in the draft Law the legal precedence of international human rights instruments to which Vietnam is a state party, which appeared in earlier drafts and has been regrettably dropped.
10. In the process of redrafting the Law, consult the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and other experts in international human rights law, as well as those who will be affected by the Law, including religion or belief communities within Vietnam, during the drafting process

Endorsing Organisations:

The Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (Altsean Burma)
Amnesty International
Boat People SOS (BPSOS)
Cambodian Center for Human Rights
Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC)
Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO)
Campaign to Abolish Torture in Vietnam (CAMSA)
Christian Solidarity Worldwide – UK
Christian Solidarity Worldwide – USA
Civil Rights Defenders
Coalition for a Free and Democratic Vietnam
Danish Mission Council
Freedom House
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
International Institute for Religious Freedom
Khmer Kampuchea Krom for Human Rights and Development Association (KKKHRDA)
Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice
People Serving People Foundation (PSPF)
People’s Empowerment Foundation (PEF)
Release International
Smile Education and Development Foundation
Society for Threatened Peoples International
Stefanus Alliance International
VETO! Human Rights Defenders’ Network (VETO!)
Vietnam Committee for Human Rights
Voice of Martyrs Canada
Voice of Martyrs Korea

Prime Minister David Cameron has been urged to raise the plight of India’s religious minorities and shrinking space for civil society in bilateral discussions with Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi on his first official visit to the United Kingdom, reports Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW).

Mr Modi’s official visit from 12-14 November is the first by an Indian prime minister in nearly a decade.

Since Prime Minister Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in May 2014, there has been a marked rise in hostility towards religious minorities across India. Hindu nationalism is also on the rise; in the three months after BJP’s electoral victory, nearly 2,000 branches (shakhas) of the Hindu nationalist organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological wing of the BJP, were established.

CSW has learned that there have been an estimated 43 deaths in over 600 cases of violence against religious minorities between May 2014 and May 2015, with the majority of attacks perpetrated against Muslims and approximately 194 Christians targeted. An atmosphere of religious intolerance and impunity is further stoked by recent mob hysteria over beef consumption. On 28 September, Mohammad Akhlaq Saifi was lynched by a mob in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh for allegedly consuming beef meat. Pervasive discrimination and systematic attacks against the Dalit community, who are often Christians, also continues to increase. In March, CSW expressed concern about a spate of attacks on churches and Christian communities.

Impunity often follows attacks against religious minorities. Justice is still outstanding for the victims of communal violence in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh State in 2013, which led to 39 deaths and 25,000 displaced, most of them Muslims. Similarly, no one has been held to account for communal violence in Kandhamal, Odisha State in 2008, which targeted Christians and claimed an estimated 100 lives, leading to the displacement of around 56,000 people and the destruction of 295 churches and places of worship.

Advocacy groups and human rights defenders have increasingly come under attack, leading to concerns about the shrinking space for civil society since Modi came to power. Writers and critics of right-wing fundamentalism have been murdered or attacked, such as Govind Pansare, who was killed in February 2015. He had received death threats after a speech in which he alleged that attempts were being made to glorify Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse since the BJP came to power. A number of Indian writers, artists and scientists have returned their national Sahitya Akademi awards in protest against the government’s failure to apprehend the perpetrators of these crimes.

CSW’s Chief Executive Mervyn Thomas said, “India’s success as the world’s largest democracy cannot be measured in purely economic terms without reference to its rights record, and the UK’s relationship with India should not focus on trade to the detriment of the enduring values which we hold dear. As the UK reaffirms the values of the Magna Carta this year, CSW urges Prime Minister David Cameron to raise the erosion of fundamental liberties in India with Prime Minister Modi, and to encourage him to ensure that the rights of all of India’s citizens are upheld, including the right to freedom of religion or belief. The UK must be vocal in demonstrating that trade does not trump human rights and democratic ideals.”

World Watch Monitor reports that a programme organised by Bargad, Pakistan’s biggest NGO for youth development, is attempting to tackle the social stigma Christians face from the word used in the Constitution for them.

The Urdu Isai (derived from Isa, the Arabic word for Jesus used in the Qur’an) now carries strong overtones – from colonial times – with the ‘unclean’ demeaning occupations done by the lowest castes. This use of language feeds the narrative which makes Christians feel like second-class citizens in today’s society.

On 8 October in Lahore, more than 500 Muslim students took an oath that they would not call Christians Isai, but would use the word Masihi (Messiah), which Pakistani Christians prefer as a positive identity for themselves.

The program is part of Bargad’s “Green for White” campaign. The green of the Pakistan flag represents the Muslim majority and the white, the non-Muslim minority. The campaign is thus to motivate Muslims to support religious minorities, who in recent years have become the target of religiously motivated discrimination, prejudice, stereotyping and violence.

The students, from various parts of the country, also promised to carry this message to at least 100 other people.

The Constitution of Pakistan divides its citizens between Muslims and ‘non-Muslims’, even though the country’s founder, Mohamed Ali Jinnah, famously stated: “You are free. You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

Article 260(3)(b) explains a non-Muslim as “a person belonging to the Christian, Hindu, Sikh …” faith. The Urdu translation of the Constitution uses the word Isai for Christians.

Some church leaders in recent years have tried to spread a message that the Isa of the Qur’an does not refer to the Biblical Jesus. Others have stressed that, according to Acts 11:26, the disciples of Jesus were called ‘Christians’, so their name should be derived from the word ‘Christ’ and not from ‘Jesus’. However, the discomfort of Pakistani Christians with the word Isai has more to do with the Indian caste system than religious conflict between Christians and Muslims.

“It is important to work on changing social behaviours towards minorities, so that they are duly respected and protected,” said Kamran Michael, Pakistan’s only Christian Senator.

Bargad Executive Director Sabiha Shaheen added: “Why can’t we Muslims just call the Christians by the word they think is more respectable for them? Today we are sowing a seed for social harmony and change in which all students have taken an oath to share this message with 100 other people. Though there is a law in place to outlaw name-calling, as responsible citizens we need to take a step towards this change.”

Why the issue is more about ‘caste’ than about religion

Most Pakistani Christians are Dalits from the “untouchable” caste. En masse conversion to Christianity among this caste began sometime in 1873 and abruptly ended in 1920s during the British rule of India in the Punjab, now Pakistan. When a large number of Sikhs belonging to untouchable castes converted to Christianity, the word Isai became popular, but later it became derogatory and synonymous with “low caste”.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica explains caste as “socially ranked occupational categories”. The caste system splits occupations into three categories: “clean”, “menial” and “defiling”. The upper three castes are assigned “clean” occupations: priesthood, governance and business. “Menial” occupations include barber, cobbler and ironsmith. Jobs involving picking up dead animals, working with their hides and also sanitary work are considered “defiling”. Those working in “defiling” occupations are considered “untouchable” because by touching them, a “clean” person becomes ritually “unclean”.

The word Isai is also used for “labourer” and “sweeper”.

The Indian Christian journal, Religion and Society, notes that when landowners or businessmen need to hire labourers, they will say in Punjabi: “Aah, jara do ku Saai [Christians] kharhnay si”, which means, “I want to hire a few labourers”. Similarly, the 1961 census in Lahore recorded that menial castes include “Christians, lohars [blacksmiths], tarkhans [carpenters] and mochis [cobblers]”.

In legal documents, under caste, Christians (regardless of education, wealth, etc.) are all referred to as Isai, i.e. the equivalent of “labourer” or even “sanitary worker”.

The primary forces behind regulating the Indian caste system as an instrument for social stratification were the religious notions of karma (deeds) and samsara (reincarnation). Human beings are born unequal, according to the Manusmriti, described by the Encyclopaedia Britannica as “the most authoritative of the books of the Hindu code”.

Over hundreds of years, the Muslims who came to India adopted the caste system, giving birth to “Islamic castes”. The locals who converted to Islam also maintained the caste system. Prior to becoming an independent state, Pakistan was part of Indian society; hence, it inherited the social and cultural patterns that had prevailed in the subcontinent for millennia.

The Bargad event was arranged in collaboration with Punjab’s Youth Affairs Department, Young Parliamentary Forum and Youth Parliamentary Caucus. Punjab’s Youth, Human Rights and Minority Affairs and Finance Ministers all participated, with the YP Caucus Chairman and Vice-Chairperson Mary Gill, and National Assembly member Romina Alam.

Christian parliamentarians Gill and Alam said that the initiative should have come much sooner and Senator Kamran Michael promised that he would table a bill in the National Assembly to outlaw the use of the word Isai.

 

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)(Urgent Question :
To ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the visit of President el-Sisi of Egypt and the human rights record of his Government, and, in particular, their use of the death penalty.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood):
The Prime Minister invited President Sisi to the United Kingdom because it is in Britain’s interest to help Egypt to succeed as a stable, prosperous and democratic country, and to boost our strong commercial relationship. The Prime Minister will meet President Sisi today and will discuss a range of issues, including how to combat terrorism and counter-extremism in Egypt and the region, and how best to help Egypt to succeed as that stable, prosperous and democratic country.

It is no secret that we want to see more political progress in Egypt. We want to see better protection of Egyptians’ constitutional rights, freedom of expression, and more space for non-governmental organisations and civil society. These rights and freedoms are essential to Egypt’s long-term stability. However, megaphone diplomacy is not the way for us to succeed in putting our views across effectively. Instead, we need to treat each other as real partners, and to have frank and honest conversations. This visit gives the Prime Minister an opportunity to emphasise his desire to see more political progress in Egypt, including progress on human rights and political freedoms, which are essential foundations for long-term stability.

We welcome Egypt’s current parliamentary elections as an important step towards the restoration of its legitimate institutions. By representing the Egyptian people, legislating, and holding the Government to account, the new Parliament should have a vital responsibility in building a more secure, prosperous and democratic country. Through our own conflict stability and security fund, we are working with officials from the Egyptian Parliament to help prepare it for the new session, and look forward to continuing that co-operation after the elections.

Since President Sisi was elected in May 2014, we have raised concerns over a number of human rights issues, including the large number of death sentences and the prosecution of international journalists. The United Kingdom respects the independence of the Egyptian judiciary, but we remain concerned about judicial processes that result in mass sentences, and by reports of a lack of due process in Egypt’s courts in some cases. Those factors damage the reputation of Egypt’s judiciary, and undermine international confidence in the fair application of law. The United Kingdom opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, as a matter of principle.

We have raised concerns, and will continue to do so, at ministerial meetings and in the United Nations Human Rights Council. We hope that this visit to the United Kingdom will provide an opportunity for us to hold an open dialogue on all issues, and to develop a programme of practical co-operation for the future.

Tom Brake:
I thank the Minister for that statement.

The Minister will be aware of a range of human rights concerns in relation to Egypt—he has mentioned many of them today—including the detention and condemning to death of ex-President Morsi and the fate of Karim Ashraf Mohamed al-Banna, a student from Cairo sentenced to three years in prison for announcing on Facebook that he was an atheist, thereby “insulting Islam”.

The UK Government’s position on human rights also appears to be weakening. Asked whether human rights was now one of their “lower-priority activities”, Sir Simon McDonald, permanent secretary at the FCO, replied:

“Well, answering as permanent secretary, I say that although it is one of the things we follow, it is not one of our top priorities…I would not dispute that right now the prosperity agenda is further up the list”

of priorities. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the UK Government are not downgrading human rights in favour of trade ?

Will the Prime Minister raise directly with President el-Sisi the case of Ibrahim Halawa, the Irish teenager who may be subjected to the death penalty? My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) met his sisters yesterday. Will the Prime Minister raise the cases of the different faiths suffering persecution in Egypt, including the Coptic Christians, for instance, who are experiencing kidnappings, arson and attacks on their churches? Finally, will the Prime Minister have that frank and honest conservation with President el-Sisi today and press him to commit to an end to the death penalty, political detentions, mass trials and torture in Egypt?

Mr Ellwood:
The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of very important issues and many of them will be raised by the Prime Minister and when I have the opportunity to meet the President and Foreign Minister Shukri. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned up front the question of the priority Britain places on human rights, so let me clarify the remarks of Simon McDonald. It is now our view that we raise human rights as a matter of course—it is not instead of; it is part of the package. It is part of the process, so that every time I—or the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne)—go into a meeting, we raise these matters. They are part of the broad area of concerns that we raise, along with the prosperity agenda.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the trial of President Morsi. We have raised concerns about the legal process in that case, along with others that I have mentioned. The legal process is yet to be complete, but as I said in my opening remarks, we have concerns about the roll-out of these mass trials and the need to meet international standards.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned specifically Ibrahim Halawa. Foreign Office officials have raised the matter this summer. The Irish Government are taking the lead, but we are in touch with them.

Let me end on the importance of the prosperity agenda. In order to ensure that countries are able to take the necessary steps of reform, and particularly after the decade of turbulence that Egypt has endured, it is important that there are jobs, as that provides stability and denies the space for extremism to flourish. It is absolutely right that we press human rights matters, but we are also very forward-thinking in our work to assist Egypt in a variety of sectors. Indeed, the largest company operating in Egypt is a British company: Vodafone.

Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con):
I agree with the Minister’s definition of Britain’s interests in our relationship with Egypt, but conducting diplomacy often requires some rather ugly compromises of our values. I accept that practical engagement with Egypt is essential; it is the largest country in the Arab world by some distance. Some would claim that in 2013 the then General Sisi and the military reclaimed stability and security for Egypt by removing President Morsi and his Administration from office, but no one should be in any doubt about what the price has been. Possibly thousands of people were killed when the squares were cleared, 40,000 are in prison, we have seen death penalties being handed out in batches of several hundred, and many of us will have heard first-hand testimony of people being tortured in the Egyptian justice system. I am not entirely sure that inviting President Sisi to the United Kingdom is wholly appropriate until such issues are properly addressed and there is some accountability for the conduct of the operation of 2013 and of policy since.

I accept that it is absolutely necessary for us to engage with the Egyptian Government in policy terms, and to try to give them advice privately about the possible danger they are presenting to us through the scale of the suppression, which could have the effect of widening the insurgency they face and increasing support for the most extreme Islamist jihadism in the region. It has been reported that the Foreign Office was not exactly enthusiastic about this visit, and that the decision was taken in No. 10. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on all that.

Mr Ellwood:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement. I am not sure whether he was speaking as an individual—in fact, I hope that he was speaking as an individual and not as the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, because I am not sure that the Committee would be in synergy with everything that he has said. On his last comment, I can tell him that the Foreign Office is very much in support of the visit.

My hon. Friend began by explaining the difficulties that Egypt is facing at the moment, and I absolutely agree with him. Egypt is in a very difficult neck of the woods, given the problems that we are facing in Libya and in Gaza. He also mentioned that Egypt was the largest Arab country in the region, and where Egypt goes, other countries often follow. It is therefore important that we help it to take those important footsteps towards being an open, democratic place. The Prime Minister invited President Sisi to this country precisely so that we can have a frank dialogue on a range of issues, including the very matters that my hon. Friend has just raised. We want to encourage a prosperity agenda, but we also want to emphasise the importance of political reform. That is the way in which we can help Egypt to succeed in taking steps towards being a stable, prosperous and democratic place.

Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab):
I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for raising this important issue. I should also like to thank the Minister for his response, and in particular for setting out the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s current approach to human rights. When the original demonstrations took place Tahrir Square in January 2011, the Egyptian people had a great sense of hope and expectation for a better future. Events since then have dashed those hopes, but we all want to see stability in Egypt and the wider middle east.

The House will be only too aware of the terrorist threat in Egypt, given the possible cause of the Russian plane crash, but does the Minister think that security will be furthered by the mass arrests and trials that we have seen since President Sisi seized power? Amnesty International assesses that tens of thousands of people are currently being detained in a crackdown on dissent that has targeted alleged supporters of the banned Muslim Brotherhood as well as human rights activists, journalists and perceived opponents of the Government. Has the Minister received assurances that British and other journalists are free to operate in Egypt?

Mass trials have resulted in courts handing down death sentences, including on former President Morsi, and long prison sentences. What assessment have the Government made of the fairness of those trials, given the concerns that have been expressed about the lack of proper legal representation and the wholly inadequate opportunities to present a defence? There are also reports of torture being used against those being detained, including the use of sexual violence against women. Has the Minister seen those reports and, if so, what representations have been made to the Egyptian Government?

The Minister said that the Prime Minister would be raising a range of issues with President Sisi today. Can he confirm that the Prime Minister will raise all those specific human rights issues with the President during their discussions? Will those discussions also cover the status of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United Kingdom, and if so, can the Minister tell the House when the review carried out by John Jenkins will be published?

Mass trials have resulted in courts handing down death sentences, including on former President Morsi, and long prison sentences. What assessment have the Government made of the fairness of those trials, given the concerns that have been expressed about the lack of proper legal representation and the wholly inadequate opportunities to present a defence? There are also reports of torture being used against those being detained, including the use of sexual violence against women. Has the Minister seen those reports and, if so, what representations have been made to the Egyptian Government?

The Minister said that the Prime Minister would be raising a range of issues with President Sisi today. Can he confirm that the Prime Minister will raise all those specific human rights issues with the President during their discussions? Will those discussions also cover the status of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United Kingdom, and if so, can the Minister tell the House when the review carried out by John Jenkins will be published?

Mr Ellwood:
May I thank the hon. Lady for her observations and questions, and welcome her to her place? I look forward to further dialogue and exchanges. Her opening remarks contained much on which we can agree. First, we want to see a stable Egypt, and huge concerns have been expressed about the terrorism situation that the country faces, which has been underlined, not least, by the Russian plane incident—a statement and more detail will follow on that. She mentioned the concerns about the mass arrests, and my opening remarks showed that I concur with her. We are concerned about two laws: the protest law, which we do not want to see used to limit freedoms of expression and the rights contained in the new constitution; and the anti-terror law. Egypt is facing a terrorist threat, but the law must not be used to limit the rights and freedoms of normal people wishing to express themselves. She asked about the Muslim Brotherhood report, and I can tell her that its key findings will be published shortly. Finally, on the question of the agenda of the meeting with the Prime Minister, all I can say is that nothing is off the table.

Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con):
As Chairman of the all-party group on Egypt, along with the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), may I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and say to the Minister that we warmly welcome President Sisi’s visit? We think it is a tremendous opportunity for the United Kingdom to engage, for all the reasons that the Minister has set out. Does he agree that Egypt is an ally of ours and that it is a key component in bringing about regional stability, not least in the work it has done in trying to bring about a solution between Israel and the Palestinians? Does he agree that it is very important that the British Government provide their expertise in counter-terrorism, because Egypt is under serious threat and although human rights and democracy are of course vital— nobody in this House would disagree on that—stability in the region and stability in Egypt are nevertheless unquestionably a precondition to human rights?

Mr Ellwood:
I very much welcome my hon. Friend to his position as chair of the all-party group on Egypt—

Sir Gerald Howarth:
I am the chairman, not the chair.

Mr Ellwood:
I stand corrected—I welcome him as the chairman of the all-party group on Egypt. I was personally involved in making sure that he and I, and other members of the all-party group, will have the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to meet President Sisi in order to raise many of the important issues that have been brought up today. He speaks appropriately about Egypt’s wider regional role and the responsibility it is taking to bring about peace and bring together parties. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), who is in his place, and I attended a meeting in Cairo as part of the Gaza donors conference to look at the humanitarian support—that was an initiative on the part of President Sisi. Finally, we are providing expertise to assist Egypt in defeating terrorism in the Sinai peninsula and elsewhere.

Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP):
I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for bringing this important question to the House and the Minister for his answer. A stable Egypt is important for that country and is of course vital for the wider region, but we cannot support stability at all costs. We do not just have a humanitarian responsibility to the people of Egypt to stand up for human rights in their country; we also have an interest in promoting a fair and just country, because a fair and just Egyptian Government will create an inherently more stable Egypt. What assurances can the Minister give that the importance of human rights in Egypt will remain on the agenda for the discussions between the Prime Minister and the President today, given this morning’s reports that the UK Government’s decisions to suspend flights to and from Sharm el-Sheikh will mean that the Egyptian Government are likely to be less receptive to discussions on wider issues of concern?

Mr Ellwood:
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her knowledge, interest and expertise in this area, but, as will become apparent when the statement is released—without wishing to take away from that statement—two separate issues are being conflated. There is an urgent security threat that affects flights, which is why flights have been temporarily suspended. That is quite separate from our commitment to encouraging advances in human rights laws and the prosperity agenda. I hope that the urgency of our having to deal with British citizens abroad and ensuring that they are secure does not affect the importance of the visit that is taking place.

Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con):
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need stronger relationships with countries in the middle east and that it is right that we are engaging in dialogue with President Sisi, as it is providing us with an opportunity to raise our concerns about human rights? As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, stability in Egypt is vastly preferable to chaos both for people in the region and our own security.

Mr Ellwood:
My hon. Friend articulates the exact question that many Governments have to ask themselves—how best do we influence and exert change in those countries that need encouragement to take steps forward to a more open and democratic space. One way of doing that is by shouting from afar in the hope that we can exact change. The other way to facilitate change is by engaging with those countries, having private conversations with them and providing assistance and expertise. I am afraid that that way is not so open or overt, but it is, I believe, a better way to achieve change than by shouting from afar.

Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP):
I, too, commend the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. In his comments, he suggested that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may believe that democracy and respect for human rights are less of a priority than financial prosperity and stability. Does the Minister not accept that those priorities are the wrong way round? Any Government who are founded on democracy and respect for human rights will see that stability and prosperity inevitably follow. A Government who are founded on oppression and denial of human rights will never be stable and will never govern a prosperous country. Will the Minister assure the House that the FCO will review its priorities and will, in all cases, put democracy and respect for human rights at the top of its list of priorities?

Mr Ellwood:
At the beginning of this year, I had the honour of taking 50 companies on a delegation to Cairo, and we visited the new Suez Canal as well. It was during the private meetings there that we were able to raise many of those issues. Companies will not invest in places if they do not feel secure and that there is an advancement in human rights, the rule of law and the judicial process. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I make it very clear that I never shy away from any opportunity in any country to raise concerns on human rights. It will not necessarily make the front pages of the local newspapers or even here, but I can guarantee that these matters are raised by us, by the Department for International Development and, where appropriate, by the Ministry of Defence.

Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con):
Stevenage is home to the Coptic cathedral in England, and I am very concerned about the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt. In the frank exchange of views that the Minister referred to earlier, will he ensure that religious freedoms and the plight of those Coptic Christians being kidnapped and murdered is raised with the President?

Mr Ellwood:
I had an opportunity to visit one of the Coptic churches in Cairo, and I raised that very important matter of the minorities in Egypt. It will also be raised during President Sisi’s visit in the next couple of days.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab):
In July 2013, after the military coup, the then Foreign Secretary said that

“we cannot support military interventions in democratic processes.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 385.]

The new regime in King Charles Street seems to be taking a completely different tack. What has happened since that time is that the human rights record in Egypt has plummeted. The Minister knows that there was a trial in which 520 death sentences were issued after one hour, and 683 death sentences were issued without a single defendant being present. We do not hear about it, because 125 journalists are locked up. Does the Minister not understand that appearing to endorse President Sisi is likely to make people more engaged with radical terrorism than the other way round?

Mr Ellwood:
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. President Sisi was elected and has had a referendum as well. The first round of parliamentary elections took place in October and the second round will take place on 23 November. That will provide additional scrutiny of what the Executive are doing. We take every opportunity to raise the issue of the mass arrests, as I said in my opening remarks; perhaps the hon. Lady did not hear that, but I am happy to send her a copy. In December 2013, 20 al-Jazeera journalists were arrested and we took every opportunity to make it clear that we had concerns about the manner of the arrests, not least because two Britons were involved. They were convicted in absentia and we are encouraging a full pardon to ensure that their names are cleared.

John Howell (Henley) (Con):
What assessment has the Minister made of how effective the parliamentary elections in Egypt will be in tackling human rights and will the Prime Minister raise that in his discussions with President Sisi?

Mr Ellwood:
The elections were well overdue and we are pleased that the first round has taken place, as I have just mentioned. This is a new Parliament. There is an awful lot of work to be done as it takes its infant footsteps in understanding how it, as a legislature, needs to hold the Executive to account. I am pleased that the Arab Partnership scheme and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and funds from the FCO will provide financial assistance to help train the Parliament and ensure that it is as effective as possible in holding the Executive and the presidency to account.

Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con):
I commend my hon. Friend for all the work he is doing in this area, and I particularly encourage him to raise the question of human rights on every possible occasion. Will he also thank the Egyptian people, through their Government, for the hospitality they are giving to so many thousands of refugees from Syria? Egypt is not often mentioned in that context, but it is doing vital work in that respect.

Mr Ellwood:
I concur with my hon. Friend. The work that perhaps goes unnoticed is the effort that Egypt is making to combat ISIL and terrorism in its own backyard; Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis is a terrorism group in the Sinai peninsula that has pledged its allegiance to ISIL, making matters ever more difficult in that area. Egypt should be congratulated not only on its work to combat terrorism but, as my hon. Friend points out, on taking on numbers of refugees as well.

Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the release of political activists and human rights ahead of the elections in Burma on 8 November.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge):
I thank the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for raising this matter at this important moment for Burma. Burma goes to the polls this very Sunday, which is possibly the most important democratic opportunity for the country in over 50 years. Credible, inclusive and transparent elections would represent a huge step in consolidating Burma’s transition towards democracy, but we are under no illusions that the elections will be perfect. More widely, the human rights picture remains extremely troubling.

As the hon. Lady’s question suggests, political prisoners remain a great concern in Burma. We have welcomed the release of more than 2,000 political prisoners under the Burmese Government’s scheme, following President Thein Sein’s commitment in 2012 here in London to release all political prisoners. However, that commitment remains unfulfilled. We are concerned about the continued arrest, detention and sentencing of political activists in the lead-up to the elections on Sunday.

We are concerned about the estimated figure that a minimum of 96 political activists remained behind bars at the end of September 2015, according to the most recent statistics we have, and that 460 more people have been detained under repressive laws and are awaiting trial following their arrests throughout 2014 and 2015. As the hon. Lady will be aware, they can campaign politically while undergoing a trial procedure. The arrests of activists and candidates for engaging in peaceful protests and social media posts—people such as Patrick Kum Jaa Lee and Chaw Sandy Tun—raise particular concerns over the freedom of expression in the lead-up to the elections.

More widely, we continue to have many serious concerns about the human rights situation in Burma, particularly the appalling situation of the Rohingya in Rakhine state. Thousands of people remain housed in supposedly temporary camps following the violence in 2012, when they were forced from their homes. The situation in the camps is desperate and worsening. We will continue to hold the Burmese Government to account. Most recently, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), raised these concerns with the Minister of the President’s Office when he visited Burma in July.

There has been an incredible amount of engagement on this issue, including the hon. Lady’s recent debate. I am happy to be in the House to add more flesh to that debate, particularly given that the elections are happening on Sunday.

Valerie Vaz:
I thank the Minister for coming to the House and welcome him back. I appreciate that he is stepping in for the Minister of State, who told me that he would be in Luxembourg.

The Minister mentioned that there are political prisoners. The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, a Thailand-based advocacy group, believes that there are many political prisoners and that more than 450 other people are awaiting trial. It says that the Burmese Government’s actions have intensified ahead of the polls, with the authorities continuing to lock up activists in the months leading up to the election. It stated:

“It is a great opportunity for the government to release all remaining political prisoners ahead of the election so that these people can participate in the historic polls… If the government really wants to move forward to democracy, no political prisoner should be behind bars.”

Father Thomas Htang Shan Mong, the director of the bishops conference’s justice and peace commission, has said that locking up activists contravenes basic social justice principles. He stated:

“Scores of political prisoners remain behind bars”.

He went on to say that

“the country has yet to move forward to democracy”

and that

“civil society groups…need to push for amending the draconian laws that attempt to silence activists.”

The Minister helpfully mentioned the case of Patrick Kum Jaa Lee who was arrested because he shared a photograph of a man wearing a Kachin-style longyi and stepping on a portrait of Commander-in-Chief Senior-General Min Aung Hlaing. A woman was detained after she shared a satirical picture on social media, comparing Burmese army uniforms to a feminine longyi used by opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Will the Minister say whether, ahead of these apparent free and fair elections, all activists awaiting trial and political prisoners are still in prison? He mentioned 96 prisoners, but perhaps he could update the House with another figure.

Large parts of Christian-majority Kachin state effectively remain in a state of civil war. More than 100,000 people have been displaced as a result of clashes, and they remain in temporary camps in Kachin and Shan states. The conflict shows that the Government have failed to deliver on their promise to end armed clashes in Myanmar before the vote on 8 November. In fact, only eight of 15 groups who participated in the national peace process were involved in the 15 October agreement. A Yangon-based political analyst said the fact that only some of the country’s armed ethnic groups have signed the agreement shows that it is more of a “cosmetic political show” than a historic benchmark, and stated:

“The peace process must be inclusive of all ethnic armed groups and the Government has not allowed some ethnic groups to be involved in the cease-fire agreement.”

Will the Minister update the House on whether the ceasefire agreement included all the ethnic groups, and will he say whether it is still in place ahead of the supposed free and fair elections on 8 November?

The United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in Burma said that the restrictions on rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association—including arrests and excessive force against protesters—put genuine elections at risk. Yanghee Lee said that there were worrying trends of undermining the democratic space, and a clear need for continued legislative and constitutional reform to bring the country’s legal framework in line with international human rights laws and standards. Given this country’s incredible investment in Burma, that is a matter of public policy. On Tuesday, Ben Rogers and Mark Farmaner updated us with their concerns about what is happening during the election, ahead of your historic round-table discussion in Speaker’s House, Mr Speaker.

Will the Minister ensure that he supports the United Nation’s call for all actors to work together to support further reforms in Burma? Given that a third of the population are from an ethnic minority background, internally displaced people and disenfranchised Rohingya people must all be part of that peace process to build a new nation that will encompass everyone after 8 November. Finally, will the Minister report back on this issue to the House?

James Duddridge:
I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. It is totally unacceptable to imprison people in the run-up to the election, even if they are then freed, and particularly given that they cannot campaign under Burmese law. It is concerning that such things have happened, given that in 2012 the President asserted that political prisoners would be freed. Much progress had been made since that visit to London, but things have gone backwards recently. Getting precise numbers out of Burma is difficult. The figures that I gave in my opening remarks were the most recent, but they are on the low side and cover the people we know about. Anecdotally, we are receiving reports that more people are being arrested, and the trend is getting worse.

I believe that eight out of 15 or 16 groups have signed up to the ceasefire, and that the ceasefire is broadly still in place. If I have any more information, I will return to that issue. We will continue to work closely with the UN and the special rapporteur on Burma, both in country and in New York. On parliamentary engagement, over the past few months oral questions have been raised and the hon. Lady secured a debate in Westminster Hall. More than 60 questions have been tabled in this House and the other place, and we must maintain that communication and highlight the issue. Her Majesty’s Government will continue to report on this issue, in particular following the elections on Sunday.

Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con):
You very kindly hosted a round-table meeting on Burma earlier this week, Mr Speaker, to which the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) has already referred. In that meeting, I was shocked to hear of the wholesale disenfranchisement of the Rohingya people from the elections. Will the Minister update us on what representations have been made by Her Majesty’s Government on this specific issue?

James Duddridge:
I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing advocacy on this issue. When the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, visited Burma, he went first to Rakhine to look at the situation of the Rohingya people. They are oppressed and, in relation to the election, are being denied a democratic voice. The UK Government are deeply concerned about this issue. We have raised it on a consistent basis with the current Burmese Government and will continue to do so with any future Government. The position of the Rohingya people is unacceptable in the modern democracy Burma aspires to be and which we want to see.

Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab):
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for her urgent question, which follows on closely from her excellent debate on progress in securing better human rights and better elections in Burma. There is an enormous amount of interest across the Chamber and in the other place on this important question.

The people of Burma have faced decades of brutal oppression. In a few days’ time, they will have their first openly contested election in 50 years. This progress should be widely welcomed. The release of thousands of people, as part of a presidential prisoner amnesty in July, was an important step, too. In the previous prisoner amnesty that took place in October 2014, when thousands were released a few weeks ahead of Burma’s hosting two major international summits, there were reports of an upsurge in arrests and harassment of peaceful activists. Amnesty International states:

“Myanmar’s authorities have a track record of announcing prisoner amnesties…at politically opportune times. The government must prove that this is more than an empty gesture to curry favour ahead of the November elections”.

Will the Minister set out what steps have been taken by the UK and the international community to ensure that this will be a lasting amnesty?

Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has criticised the electoral process, saying it has been less than totally free and fair and that the electoral commission has failed to deal with certain irregularities. Does the Minister share her concerns and has he raised them with the Burmese Government?

The Minister will be aware—it was raised in the urgent question—that the Rohingya and some Christian minorities are experiencing harassment and persecution. The Muslim minority are not classified as citizens and will not have a vote. Does the Minister agree that it is wrong that their voice will not be heard in this election? What efforts are being made to encourage the Burmese authorities not to follow this election, whatever the outcome, with arrests and harassment of peaceful activists who have been campaigning?

On Sunday, it will be for the Burmese people to decide their election. The whole House will be watching, looking on with hope that the election will be fair and free and that there will be a peaceful outcome that works towards greater human rights.

James Duddridge:
The eyes of the world and this Chamber are certainly on the elections to try to ensure they are free and fair. The hon. Lady’s comments were very balanced, reflecting not only the fears that things might go wrong and the fact that we should flag up any issues with the election, but the optimism that this is arguably the biggest opportunity for free and fair elections in more than 50 years. It has been a brutal, brutal decade. I congratulate all Members, some of whom are in the Chamber today, and organisations such as Amnesty International, which she mentioned in her question, that have worked so tirelessly.

The Rohingya have no voice and cannot be heard. They do not have the vote that we take for granted. I suspect it troubles all hon. Members that so many of our constituents do not vote in elections, but they do have a voice indirectly. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, visited and spoke to the Rohingya, and we will continue to press, in the strongest possible terms, for their democratic participation. Sadly, it is too late for Sunday, but we can, I hope, build on a strong election this weekend and move towards future elections that include the minority Muslim Rohingya population, so that Burma can proudly say that its election results represent the whole population, not just the vocal majority.

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con):
It is a real pleasure to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box.

Burma has been of considerable interest to the whole House, including you, Mr Speaker, for many years. I think that hon. Members can be congratulated on what they have done. Will the Minister say how we actually influence what happens in Burma? How do the Government go about influencing change?

James Duddridge:
Diplomacy is incredibly complicated. One thing I have learned in my short time at the Foreign Office is that sometimes softer diplomacy—the sort that you have exercised in relation to Burma, Mr Speaker—is among the most effective. When change does happen, as with the promise to release political prisoners in 2012, it is sometimes difficult to pinpoint exactly what was done and by whom. It is rather a menu of activity, including by campaign groups outside this place and individuals within this place.

From a ministerial viewpoint, it is important to raise the subject consistently and not to let short-term interests, be they regional or British, get in the way of our firmly raising an unacceptable situation. At the same time, however, other things carry on. The approach is about getting the right balance, focus and message, and it is having some success. It is encouraging to see the elections on Sunday, but we have concerns, and clearly we all need to do more.

Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP):
I thank the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for raising this important question at such a timely moment.

SNP Members, too, believe that this weekend’s national elections in Burma must be free and fair, but we have concerns about human rights and all citizens having a vote. Human Rights Watch yesterday identified concerns about the electoral process being

“undermined by systematic and structural problems including the lack of an independent election commission, ruling party dominance of state media, the reservation of 25 percent of seats for the military, discriminatory voter registration laws, and mass disenfranchisement of voters in some parts of the country.”

It also noted:

“Election observers planning to monitor polls are challenged by limits on resources and training. Civil society monitors have been active only one year and will cover less than one-third of all townships.”

Given these serious concerns, we urge the Government to press the Burmese Government to engage in progressive electoral reform and to take every opportunity to raise these important issues in their communications with them.

James Duddridge:
I very much support the hon. Lady’s comments about encouraging greater progressive electoral reform. It would be anathema to us in this House to think that 25% of the seats in this Chamber might be filled by military generals. This is not something recognised as part of a modern democracy. While we have issues with our media in the UK, it would be fair to say that Burma needs to do a lot more in that regard.

On the structure of the elections and the election commission, again more work could be done on future elections, but the EU did deploy an extensive election observer mission—more than 100 people went there, some on a short-term basis and some, crucially, on a long-term basis, to witness the preparations and understand exactly what was happening in the run-up to the elections. The deputy chief observer is a British national, which is something we should be proud of.

Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con):
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) took this opportune moment to raise this important question. I also welcome the Minister back to this House; it is fantastic to see him here.

We have talked about the influence that Britain can bring to bear. A Facebook message I posted on the Burma Campaign UK has been seen by 147,000 residents of that country. It encouraged the people of Burma to go out and use their votes, despite their concerns about whether the election would be free and fair. Does the Minister agree that whatever the human rights situation in Burma, the only way to effect change in that country is to go out and vote as the people see fit? That is how to effect change and how Burma can move to becoming a more democratic country.

James Duddridge:
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me back to the House; I do not think I had the courtesy to welcome him to the Commons, but it is a pleasure to do so now. After hearing about his social media experience in relation to Burma, when I leave the Chamber I am immediately going to tweet a copy of my speech. It is clear that social media are picked up differently: people are not poring over their copy of Hansard, which might have been sent to them several days later, as some hon. Members might recall from their youth; social media allow people to access information speedily. I look forward to my hon. Friend re-tweeting me.

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD):
I wish the Minister well in getting 147,000 views for his speech! More seriously, he may want to respond now or perhaps in writing. In relation to the UN Human Rights Council universal periodic review recommendations, will he advise us what progress, if any, has been made on ensuring the independence of the judiciary; prohibiting the use of torture; ensuring that clear information is provided about the arrest and charging of political detainees; and ensuring that they have access to legal representation?

James Duddridge:
I am more than happy to raise these issues with the UN special rapporteur—I understand it is not the only forum through which they can be raised—and will update the right hon. Gentleman on the success of that lobbying. As was pointed out earlier, this is a multi-pronged attack to try to improve the situation in Burma, and engagement with the UN is an important part of that.

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con):
My hon. Friend said a little earlier that Burma has regressed from 2012. I am wondering what travel advice the Foreign Office gives to people considering going to Burma from the United Kingdom for holidays and recreation.

James Duddridge:
I would advise anyone thinking of travelling to look at the Foreign Office website for travel advice, particularly if they are going to places such as Burma where a significant event is happening on Sunday. Travel advice can change very quickly around the world. I spoke to consular staff yesterday on a number of issues, and I know that our consular support is some of the best in the world. The advice provided on the website is bang up to date and easily accessible; if things change on an hour-by-hour basis, that is the right place to look.

Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con):
I, too, welcome my very good hon. Friend back to this place. I very much look forward to working with him on Zimbabwe, in which, as he knows, I have a very keen interest. As you may know, Mr Speaker, the Minister’s parents-in-law used to live in my constituency and one was a councillor in Plymouth.

On my way to work this morning, I heard on the radio that the military in Burma was suggesting that if Aung San Suu Kyi should end up winning this election, it would not allow her to become President. Will my hon. Friend comment on that? He may not have heard this news.

James Duddridge:
I thank my hon. Friend, whose lobbying on Zimbabwe knows no bounds. He has raised the issue with me five times in four days, Mr Speaker, and now he raises it on an urgent question on Burma—and gets away with it! That is great advocacy.

Aung San Suu Kyi stood as a Member of Parliament in 2012 and was elected. She is standing again in the election on Sunday, just as a Member of Parliament would do here before taking a position in government. The Government in Burma will need to be formed by February. There are constitutional bars that will make it difficult for her to take up the role of President—specifically, the constitution states that anyone with any offspring who maintain non-Burmese passports cannot be President. That provision was inserted specifically to bar Aung San Suu Kyi from taking the presidency if she were democratically elected.

Normally, the United Kingdom Government strongly support the constitutions of sovereign nation states, but in this case the constitution simply does not follow the democratic principles that we should be encouraging the people of Burma to move towards. I do not know whether a balance can be found between 8 November and February, but I noted Aung San Suu Kyi’s statement that she intended to govern if she was victorious and if the National League for Democracy had a workable majority. I think that, regardless of the constitution, people should take note of the democratic will of the people in Burma.

As hundreds gathered outside Downing Street in London on Wednesday (4 November) to protest against the visit of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, The Cairo Post reported that U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Chairman Robert P. George said that the religious situation in Egypt has been “complicated” over the past year, although President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi made ‘noteworthy’ statements to urge religious reform.

“The religious freedom landscape in Egypt…can be summed up as follows: one step forward, two steps back,” George said in his testimony before the Tom Lantos Commission on Human Rights in a session titled Human Rights in Egypt.

He said over the past year, the Egyptian government’s crackdown on terrorism and extremism negatively impacted and resulted in a “poor” human right situation.

“Despite some political and other dissidents being released from prison this year, sympathizers and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, journalists, and opposition figures have been harassed, jailed, and given harsh prison terms, including death sentences for Brotherhood members and other Islamists, sometimes on legitimate, but also on unfounded, security charges,” he said.

George described the situation of the Coptic Christian orthodox as “precarious”, however, he said the number of the attacks against Copts was notably decreased over the past two years.

He added that President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi made “noteworthy” statements on religious tolerance and moderation, beside encouraging reformation of the religious discourse.

Despite the decreased number of the attacks against the Copts, the perpetrators have not been brought before justice, George added, saying “the inability to protect Copts and other religious minorities, and successfully prosecute those responsible for violence, has continued to foster an atmosphere of impunity.”

“Small communities of Baha’is and Jehovah’s Witnesses remain banned and anti-Semitism persists in state-controlled and semiofficial media,” continuing “despite these positive developments, most of the discriminatory and repressive laws and policies that restrict freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief remain in place.”

The committee said that during Sisi’ tenure the government’s Ministry of Endowment controlled over all the state’s institutions and mosques as a “necessary” way to fight the religious extremism.

The committee has urged the U.S. administration to ensure that U.S. security assistance to help the Egyptian police to protect the religious minority communities and human rights and civil society and belief for all Egyptians.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) has written to Prime Minister David Cameron urging him to raise human rights concerns, including long-term issues regarding freedom of religion or belief, with President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi during his official visit to the UK this week.

President Sisi’s visit comes at a time when terrorism has been on the increase across Egypt. While most acts of terror are concentrated on the Sinai region where the jihadi group and Daesh (Islamic State) affiliate Anṣār Bayt al-Maqdis is based, regular bomb explosions targeting government, judicial and security buildings, as well as high profile assassinations, have also occurred in Cairo. While there is a general public acceptance that the battle against terrorism requires special measures, concerns are increasingly voiced regarding the rapidly shrinking space for civil society as fundamental rights and freedoms, including of expression and association, are increasingly curtailed.

There are also persistent concerns regarding full enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief. In August 2013, allegations that the Christian community was behind the removal of former president Mohamed Morsi triggered a wave of sectarian violence targeting Christians and churches. Although the frequency of such attacks has decreased significantly since that time, and while there have been encouraging moves towards ensuring greater equality for all religions, problems persist.

In Upper Egypt in particular, members of Egypt’s Coptic community, the largest Christian community in the Middle East, experience difficulties largely at the hands of non-State actors. Coptic individuals or communities in this area can face harassment, verbal and physical abuse, kidnapping for ransom, destruction or illegal seizure of property, destruction of churches and the threat of murder, with security services often failing to provide adequate protection. CSW has also received reports indicating that in some instances police and other state actors perpetrate discrimination and persecution.

In addition, charges of “insulting religion” or blasphemy are increasingly being levelled against members of non-majority faiths. Although these charges tend to be issued by courts outside of Cairo, there is a worrying trend of fines and prison sentences being handed to those found guilty of religious defamation. “Contempt of religion” laws are used to detain, prosecute and imprison those whose practices and proclamations are alleged to jeopardise “communal harmony.” While the majority of people found guilty of blasphemy have come from the Christian community, Shi’a Muslims, atheists, and individuals from the Sunni Muslim majority have also received similar charges.

President Sisi has made several speeches and statements encouraging religious tolerance and is the first Egyptian President to attend a Coptic Christmas mass, where he advocated equal citizenship. In widely hailed remarks at Al-Azhar University, the foremost seat of religious matters, jurisprudence and learning in Sunni Islam, he outlined the need for a “religious revolution”, saying that the “corpus of [Islamic] texts and ideas that we have sacralized [sic] over the years” are “antagonizing the entire world”.

CSW’s Chief Operating Officer Andy Dipper said, “The alarming increase in terrorism understandably necessitates extraordinary measures; however, we urge the Prime Minister to use the opportunity of President Sisi’s first visit to the UK to encourage the formulation of a counter-insurgency policy that is tolerant of civil society and of the peaceful expressions of dissent that are vital for the emergence of a healthy pluralistic society. While we applaud the president’s commitment to equal citizenship for all Egyptians, it is important that the continuing difficulties experienced by non-majority religious communities, including the harassment of Coptic communities in Upper Egypt and the proliferation of religious defamation charges, are also addressed during these discussions. The Egyptian constitution proclaims that ‘Freedom of Belief is absolute’; however, religion-related violations and discrimination prevent the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief by every faith community, which in turn mitigates against the emergence of a just and prosperous society.”

In its submission to the International Development Select Committee that was made public last week, the APPG for International Freedom of Religion or Belief has warned that the UK government’s commitment to take 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees from camps in Jordan, Libya and Turkey risks failing to ensure that the most vulnerable are included in the government’s Vulnerable Persons Relocation (VPR) Scheme.

Anecdotal evidence received by the APPG from a plethora of religious communities has indicated that some, due to their beliefs, are avoiding the refugee camps for reasons including fear of attack. In light of such evidence, the APPG recommended that an investigation be made into why refugees are avoiding camps but also to immediately broaden the definition of ‘vulnerable’, in appropriate circumstances, to include vulnerability on the basis of one’s beliefs.

Anecdotal evidence received by the APPG and highlighted in its submission to the International Development Select Committee indicates that Syrian refugees who are, at least, members of Syrian Christian, Sunni Kurd, Shi’ite, Alevi, Alawite, Druze and Yazidi communities are avoiding refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Reasons for their avoidance are, as thought by Open Doors UK & Ireland, to range from ‘fear of discrimination and further persecution to an attempt to hold onto the last shreds of dignity by renting an apartment, despite the un-affordability’. Given the complex contexts within which refugees now find themselves in both refugee camps and urban settings in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, the APPG has urged HMG to ensure that these complexities are properly considered when deciding upon the vulnerability criteria for the VPR Scheme.

Recommendations made by the APPG in its submission include that HMG needs to recognise and act on the understanding that:

• Individuals who have left their regions of origin due to their religious identity or beliefs may have suffered from violence or torture and should thus be determined as vulnerable under the VPR Scheme. HMG should thus ensure that religious or belief minorities are included, on a needs basis, in the VPR Scheme.
• The focus in the VPR Scheme should not just be on children etc. but should include different religious or belief minorities due to their still being at risk of violence or other acts of persecution. If its own investigations also indicate as necessary, HMG should expand the current criteria of vulnerability to include minority religious or belief refugees. One religious or belief community should not be prioritised over others.
• Given the above evidence which suggests religious minorities may be avoiding camps, the current policy of resettling refugees from camps in Jordan, Lebanon or Turkey may fail to reach the full demographic of vulnerable Syrian refugees as they are not necessarily a true representation of the most vulnerable Syrians.
• As the VPR Scheme progresses in this parliament, HMG does not limit it to vulnerable refugees of Syrian descent but extends it to especially vulnerable refugees from nations including Iraq.

UPDATE

On 4 November, Lord Alton and Fiona Bruce MP, accompanied by a delegation from human rights and aid organisations as well as the APPG for International Freedom of Religion or Belief, met a Government Minister and officials from the Department for International Development.

The delegation underlined the serious threat facing Christians, Yazidis and other minorities in the Middle East. They provided evidence of attacks on Christians and other religious groups who, having fled ISIS, have been driven out of refugee camps.

They argued that Britain must not target help for refugees in camps whilst ignoring the doubly persecuted. They also challenged Ministers to say how more than £1 billion of British aid in Pakistan – and 300 million Euros of aid to Eritrea – has been used to help persecuted minorities and to promote the provisions of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 insists on the right to believe, not to believe or to change belief – all of which are flagrantly denied in countries like Pakistan and Eritrea.