Category: News

On 27 October 2015 the APPG for International Freedom of Religion or Belief held a briefing session for the APPG’s stakeholders with the Foreign Office’s Head of Equality & Non-Discrimination Team in the Human Rights & Democracy Department, Sue Breeze, on Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) and the new FCO approach to human rights.

This briefing provided a good opportunity for stakeholders to question the FCO’s change from having FoRB as one of its eight human rights priorities to setting up a ‘three pillar’ human rights framework around the themes of ‘democratic values’, ‘the rules-based international system’ and ‘human rights for a stable world’.

Ms Breeze emphasised the relevance of FoRB to all three of these themes and that, upon framing FoRB within them, organisations working to advance this human right might be able to more effectively engage with FCO policy and projects than previously before.

The first of the FCO’s projects is to engage with ‘education in the Middle East and North Africa’. APPG Stakeholders and FCO officials working on FoRB will meet again to discuss this project and receive suggestions regarding the FCO’s future projects and thematic foci in the coming months.

On 27 October the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations held a hearing under the heading The Global Crisis of Religious Freedom.

View the hearing

The Honorable David N. Saperstein, Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom U.S. Department of State gave evidence. Here are some key extracts:

During my tenure as Ambassador at Large, I’ve noticed certain enduring truths. In many countries, religious freedom flourishes. People are free to choose their faith, change their faith, speak about their faith to others, teach their faith to their children, dissent from religion, build places of worship, and worship alone or in fellowship with others.

In such societies, denominations and faith groups organize as they see fit. Interfaith cooperation flourishes. Religious communities contribute significantly to the social welfare and serve as a moral compass to their nations.

Yet in far too many countries people face daunting, alarming, and growing challenges because of their beliefs. In countries with proud traditions of multi-faith cooperation where positive coexistence was once the norm, we have witnessed growing numbers of religious minorities being driven out of their historic homelands. And in too many countries, prisoners of conscience suffer cruel punishment for their religious beliefs and practices.

The abhorrent acts of terror committed by those who falsely claim the mantle of religion to justify their wanton destruction are the fastest growing challenge to religious freedom worldwide.

In Iraq and Syria, ISIL has sought to eliminate anyone assessed as deviating from its own violent and destructive interpretation of Islam. The group has displaced many hundreds of thousands from their homes based solely on their religion or opposition to ISIL’s rule, be they Sunni or Shia, Christian or Yezidi, or any one of the many other ethno-religious groups for whom Iraq and Syria are home—Turkmen, Sabean Mandaean, Kaka’is, Shabak, and others.

We continue to see the negative impact of blasphemy and apostasy laws in countries including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan, as well as the impact from laws that purport to protect religious sentiments from offense.

Such laws have been used in some countries as a pretext to justify violence in the name of religion, which can lead to false claims of blasphemy and create an atmosphere of impunity for those resorting to violence. The United States uniformly opposes blasphemy and apostasy laws, which are frequently used to oppress those whose religious beliefs happen to differ from the majority. Such laws are inconsistent with international human rights and fundamental freedoms, and we will continue to call for their universal repeal.

Repressive governments routinely subject their citizens to violence, detention, discrimination, and undue surveillance, for simply exercising their faith or identifying with a religious community.

Many governments have also used the guise of confronting terrorism or violent extremism to justify repression of religious groups’ nonviolent religious activities, or imposition of broad restrictions on religious life. Russia continues to use vaguely formulated anti-extremism laws to justify arrests, raids on homes and places of worship, and the confiscation or banning of religious literature. The Government of Tajikistan bans people under age of 18 from participating in any public religious activities, supposedly on the ground that exposure to religion will lead youths to violence, and supports a 2004 religious decision prohibiting Hanafi Sunni women’s worship in mosques. Chinese officials have increased controls on Uighur Muslims’ peaceful religious expression and practice, including reported instances of banning beards and headscarves. Tibetan Buddhists faced government interference in the selection of reincarnate lamas, and monasteries faced increased government management and interference as part of measures to “combat separatism.”

Robert P. George, Ph.D., Chairman, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom [extracts]:

Why Religious Freedom Matters

Freedom of religion or belief is a broad, inclusive right that embraces the full range of thought, belief, and behaviour. It means the right of all human beings to think as they please, believe or not believe as their conscience leads, and live out their beliefs openly, peacefully, and without fear. No government, group, or individual has the right to compel others to act against their conscience or restrain them from answering its call. Religious freedom applies to the holders of all religious beliefs and extends to those who reject religious beliefs altogether, and was overwhelmingly adopted in 1948 in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as in subsequent international agreements.

A number of studies also have shown that, in countries that honour and protect this right, religious freedom generally is associated with vibrant political democracy, rising economic and social well-being, and diminished tension and violence. In contrast, nations that trample on religious freedom are more likely to be mired in poverty and insecurity, war and terror, and violent, radical extremism.

Three Country Examples: Vietnam, Pakistan and Tajikistan

Religious freedom remains under serious assault across much of the world, including in countries that top the U.S. foreign policy agenda. The tools IRFA provides need to be used, and used more effectively. The three countries highlighted below – Vietnam, Pakistan, and Tajikistan – underscore both how IRFA and the CPC designation can promote positive change and how not using those tools can lead to missed opportunities.

Vietnam
A USCIRF delegation visited Vietnam in August 2015 to assess religious freedom conditions in that country. To be sure, religious freedom in Vietnam today is notably improved from the postwar era. For example, government-sanctioned religious communities have greater space in which to practice their faiths, and as the government noted during USCIRF’s visit, the country is religiously diverse and experiences few inter-religious conflicts.

Yet, despite these steps forward, Vietnam still falls short of meeting international religious freedom standards. The Vietnamese government controls nearly all religious activities, restricts independent religious practice, and represses individuals and groups it views as challenging its authority, including independent Buddhists, Hoa Hao, Cao Dai, and Protestants. Religious organizations and congregations must register in order to be considered legal. Those who choose to maintain their independence from state-sanctioned religious entities, or those whose registration applications are denied, are vulnerable to harassment, discrimination, detention, and imprisonment. Individuals remain imprisoned for religious activity or religious freedom advocacy.

Pakistan
Since 2002, USCIRF has recommended CPC designation for Pakistan due to the government’s systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom and its toleration of such violations by the Taliban and other non-state actors. The State Department never has designated Pakistan as a CPC, despite its own IRF Reports, USCIRF’s Annual Report and ongovernmental  reports, all of which document severe religious freedom violations against all Pakistanis, including Sunni, Shia and Ahmadi Muslims, as well as Christians and Hindus. USCIRF has called Pakistan the worst situation in the world for religious freedom for countries the U.S. government has not currently designated as CPCs.

Tajikistan
The State Department never has designated Tajikistan as a CPC despite its “systematic, ongoing and egregious” violations of freedom of religion or belief. The lack of this designation is significant, particularly after the State Department designated its neighbors, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, as CPCs. The laws and policies of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan similarly restrict religious freedom. The government of Tajikistan suppresses and punishes all religious activity independent of state control, particularly the activities of Muslims, Protestants, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses have been banned since 2007. Numerous laws that severely restrict religious freedom have been adopted since 2009. The government also imprisons individuals on unproven criminal allegations linked to Islamic religious activity and affiliation.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, last week called on all Governments represented at the UN General Assembly “to respect religious practices by children and their families and support families in fulfilling their role in providing an enabling environment for the realisation of the rights of the child.”

“Every individual child is a rights holder in his or her own capacity as recognised in Article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Mr. Bielefeldt recalled during the presentation of his special report* on the rights of the child and his or her parents in the area of freedom of religion or belief.

“Violations of freedom of religion or belief often affect the rights of children and their parents,” he said. “Children, typically girls, from religious minorities for example, are abducted and forcibly converted to another religion through forced early marriage.”

The rights expert also urged religious communities across the world to ensure respect for the freedom of religion or belief of children within their teaching and community practices, bearing in mind the status of the child as a rights holder.

“Religious community leaders should support the elimination of harmful practices inflicted on children, including by publicly challenging problematic religious justifications for such practices whenever they occur,” he said.

With regard to possible conflicts, the Special Rapporteur stressed the need for due diligence by the State when dealing with conflicting human rights concerns, ensuring non-discriminatory family laws and the settlement of family-related conflicts, and combating harmful practices.

“While in many situations of violations the rights of the child and the rights of his or her parents may be affected in conjunction, it is not always the case,” Mr. Bielefeldt noted. “The interests of parents and children are not necessarily identical, including in the area of freedom of religion or belief”.

The expert highlighted that parents or legal guardians have the right and duty to direct the child in the exercise of his or her freedom of religion or belief. “Such direction should be given in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child in order to facilitate a more and more active role of the child in exercising his or her freedom of religion or belief, thus paying respect to the child as a rights holder from early on,” he said.

“Parents are also not obliged to provide a religiously ‘neutral’ upbringing in the name of the child’s right to an ‘open future,’” he added. “The rights of parents to freedom of religion or belief include their rights to educate their children according to their own conviction and to introduce their children to religious initiation rites.”

In his report, the Special Rapporteur discusses issues related to religious socialization; religious instruction within the family; participation in religious community life; religious education in schools; the voluntary display of religious symbols in schools; respect for the evolving capacities of the maturing child; and non-discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.

[OHCHR news release 23 October]

The Special Rapporteur’s report to the General Assembly

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking, if any, to promote Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

Read the debate in full

Watch the debate in full (starts at 2pm)

Extracts:

Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB):
My Lords, today’s short debate enables us to return to issues raised on 24 July, when we last debated Article 18. The gravity of the situation is underlined by events over the last few days. Following the beheading of a group of Eritrean Christians and the execution of Assyrian Christians, last weekend Islamic State in Libya released a video showing the beheading of a Christian from South Sudan. That ideological hatred of difference is driving on a systematic campaign of deportation and exodus, degrading treatment, including sexual violence, enslavement, barbaric executions, and attempts to destroy all history and culture and beliefs that are not their own. Pope Francis has described these events as a genocide of Christians, and many others of course suffer too.

…In the same week, another 20 people were killed for refusing to convert to Islam, including two women. The 29 year-old and 33 year-old women were first brutally raped. Eight of the captives were beheaded. That is of a piece with the violent assault on the Yazidis. A former Yazidi MP told parliamentarians that 3,000 Yazidi girls are still in Daesh hands, suffering rape and abuse. She said:

“The Yazidi people are going through mass murder. The objective is their annihilation … 500 young children have been captured, being trained as killing machines, to fight their own people. This is a genocide and the international community should say so”.

…Since the beginning of the war in Syria, it is estimated that the number of Christians has fallen from about 1.5 million in 2003 to maybe fewer than 200,000 today. This is a genocide that dares not speak its name, and I ask the Minister when our Government will join with Pope Francis and others and name it for what it is. Either there is a genocide under way or there is not; either there is worldwide persecution of Christians or there is not; either someone is being killed, imprisoned or tortured every few minutes for reasons of faith or belief, or they are not. If we accept the evidence that they are, why are the resources which we devote to these issues, and the priority which we give them, so pitifully inadequate?

In our debate in July, I was critical of the Foreign Office’s failure to increase the one full-time desk officer wholly dedicated to freedom of religion or belief. Since then I have been troubled by exchanges in the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee about the importance that the Foreign Office attaches to human rights. Sir Simon McDonald, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was reported as saying that “although it”—that is, human rights—

“is one of the things we follow, it is not one of our top priorities”,

adding that,

“right now the prosperity agenda is further up the list”,

a remark which Crispin Blunt MP, the committee’s chairman, rightly said would cause concern.

That worrying exchange comes on the back of the Foreign Secretary’s admission that the department’s annual human rights report is being drastically cut back. The prosperity agenda and the lives and fundamental freedoms of people must never be part of a cynical trade-off. In former times, that sort of thinking justified the commercial interests of the slave trade and the opium wars.

Two days ago, I chaired a hearing on Eritrea. Witnesses cited a United Nations report which concludes that the Afwerki regime’s tyranny probably constitutes “crimes against humanity”. We were told of deaths, torture, arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, indefinite military conscription, forced labour and, as we heard on Tuesday, persecution of religious believers. The country’s population is haemorrhaging as those who are able to do so try to escape.

Every month up to 5,000 people leave Eritrea. More than 350,000 have done so so far—around 10% of the entire population. Forty-six per cent of those who try to make the perilous Mediterranean crossing from Libya come from either Eritrea or Syria. Therefore, unless we tackle the root causes of the exodus, including fearful violations of Article 18, we are never going to see an end to the refugee crisis. I will just say in parenthesis that many of those who have tried to escape are outside refugee camps, which I hope we will take into account in selecting refugees for resettlement.

Article 18 and human rights violations are inextricably linked to the catastrophic movement of populations, to refugee policies and to issues such as the development aid that Governments such as our own pursue. How is the European Union aid package of $300 million to the Eritrean regime or the £405 million of UK aid this year to Pakistan—£1.17 billion since 2011—being used? Is it used to leverage fundamental Article 18 reforms or to help those who are persecuted? A mob of 1,200 people in Pakistan 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 not brought 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 and different minorities—Shias, Ahmadis and Christians—have experienced discrimination and outright persecution. While Pakistan has been receiving vast sums of money, the response of the state has been at best indifference, and at worst, the complicity of some of its agencies.

In September, after visiting Burmese refugee camps I went to the detention centre in Bangkok, a city which the UNHCR says more than 11,900 Pakistani Christians have fled to. Over two days, I took evidence from escapees. One witness recounted how his friend Basil, a pastor’s son, was targeted by Islamists attempting to convert him. After Basil reminded them that there should be no compulsion in religion, they set fire to his home, and he, his wife and daughter, aged 18 months, were burned alive. Following their deaths the assailants turned their attention to his friend, who was attacked and beaten. After reporting this to the police, instead of protecting him and bringing to justice those who had been responsible for those deaths, the police informed the assailants, who told him they would kill him. He, his wife and his little girl fled the country and, after arriving in Thailand in 2014, applied for asylum. They have been told by the UNHCR that they will be interviewed in 2018. It could then be a further two years before they are resettled. Only 400 cases have been processed so far this year. This is an intolerable delay. Meanwhile, he and his wife and child live in fear of being arrested and incarcerated in the detention facilities, where they would be separated into segregated cells, sharing a space of 18 feet by 36 feet with up to 100 other prisoners, including children. Witnesses told me that detainees have devised a rota to enable half the inmates in these cells to sleep at night and the other half to sleep by day. As one witness told me:

“We just lie side by side, including our children … force-fed poultry in battery farms are treated better and in more humane conditions than these”.

This is an international scandal.

When I met the UNHCR, staff quoted British Home Office guidance that asylum claims cannot be accelerated because escapees were subject to discrimination, not persecution. However, on 11 September, the Minister of State for International Development, Desmond Swayne, said in a parliamentary reply:

“The Government of Pakistan has publically recognised the problems facing minorities, and the need to bring an end to religious persecution”.

Mr Swayne is right: there is outright persecution. So why does the Home Office guidance, Pakistan: Christians and Christian Converts, state that,

“the evidence does not indicate that Christians are, in general, subject to a real risk of persecution or inhuman or degrading treatment”?

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief will hold two days of hearings on Pakistan on 10 and 11 November, and Dr Paul Bhatti, the brother of the assassinated government Minister, will address Members of both Houses on 17 November. I hope that the officials who drafted the Home Office guidance will attend, and will agree with Mr Swayne to accurately describe events in Pakistan as persecution.

Finally, there was another event in Westminster this week. On Tuesday, while the President of China addressed both Houses of Parliament, in Zhejiang province alone more than 1,500 churches were having their crosses forcibly removed by the authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has just answered a Question on the Floor of the House about the brave human rights lawyers who have been at the forefront of trying to defend many of those who have been persecuted. Some 280 rights lawyers have been detained or disappeared in China since 9 July. The lesson for China is that without freedom of conscience and freedom of belief, no society will prosper and there can never be harmony. There is a direct correlation between those countries which are the most prosperous and those which uphold freedom of religion and belief. This is a lesson for us, too. Article 18 is a core value which is being systematically attacked and it is our duty as parliamentarians in this great democracy to say so.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con):
In view of the shocking statistics on religious persecution and the levels of human suffering they indicate, is it not time for the British Government to examine how they can take stronger measures to support those who are being persecuted for practising their faith? Religious liberty is a universal human right, and democratic Governments who believe in the rule of law should have the moral courage to raise the issue wherever such rights are flagrantly abused in breach of the UN charter. If the West can impose sanctions on Russia over its Government’s aggressive actions in eastern Ukraine, could not overseas aid, or rather the loss of it, be used to bring pressure to bear for a change of policy? Where a country’s Government are behaving intolerably, and the Government are turning a blind eye, we should act in a principled way and, where necessary, consider withholding aid. Our overseas aid budget was £11.7 billion last year. Can the Minister assure us today that with the provision of bilateral aid, the Government will insist that the Governments of the countries concerned should show a definite commitment to freedom of worship?

Baroness Cox (CB):
Last week, suicide bombings on the outskirts of Maiduguri in Borno state targeted two mosques, with at least 39 Muslims killed. When I and my colleagues from my NGO, HART, visited the area, we learned that the scale of slaughter and abduction far exceeds that reported by the media. For example, the horrific plight of the Chibok girls, already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, is internationally known, but the fate of more than 1,000 women and girls taken by Boko Haram—which also abducts and forcibly recruits boys as young as 12 years old—is not. Christian communities have been subject to regular attacks for decades in northern Nigeria, but these have escalated with the rise of Boko Haram. A reign of terror persists there, as described powerfully last week by Victoria Yohanna, who herself escaped from Boko Haram.

I turn briefly to Azerbaijan, which has been classified as “not free” by Freedom House. The Government there restrict the religious practices of most non-Shia Muslim communities. Leaders of unsanctioned religious services have been imprisoned, and many mosques and Muslim schools have been closed. Churches must be registered, but none have been able to do so since January 2010. Those gathering to study religion have been jailed and some deported. A junior State Committee official has claimed:

“We forbid religious books—but this isn’t religious discrimination”.

Police raids of Muslim prayer and study meetings continue. A raid of a home in September 2015 left 85 people taken for questioning, 3,000 religious books confiscated and two Turkish scholars deported. On 7 October this year, five Sunni Muslims were jailed following their arrest during a raid of an Islamic study meeting. Their lawyers were not allowed to attend the final hearing. What representations have Her Majesty’s Government made to the Governments of Nigeria and Azerbaijan concerning these serious assaults on freedom of religion and belief?

The Lord Bishop of Coventry:
Too often, the abuse of religious freedom arises from a false collusion between religion and national loyalty. We saw it once in our own land and, yes, in my own church. We see it now in the “gozinesh” criterion for state employment in Iran, in the treatment of the Rohingya in Myanmar, and in the actions of the so-called Orthodox Army in the Donbass region of Ukraine.

Religions, which at their best seek to serve all humanity, find themselves yoked to a form of patriotism that is insecure and sees minorities as the enemy within. Religious leaders go from trying to influence their society responsibly to denying that others have a place within it. In the worst of cases, the great faiths become like ploughshares beaten into swords, with their messages of life betrayed and turned into instruments of death and persecution. Such a toxic mixture of the abuse of theology and the rejection of human rights will only be defeated by the combined efforts of secular and religious leaders. For this end, the Inter-Religious Platform for Article 18, IRP18, was launched in June. It brings together religious leaders from various faiths and serves as a catalyst for these religious leaders to campaign together for global religious freedom. It is deficient both theologically and practically for religious leaders to speak for the persecuted from their own religions alone. All faiths must defend all faiths. If one faith does not have the freedom to worship, no believer can feel secure.

The aim is not for all religions to see each other as equally true. This would be unachievable. Nevertheless, as the Dalai Lama recently noted, there is now a special responsibility for religious leaders to affirm the place of the other as the other. This principle can unite people from all faiths and beliefs while maintaining theological integrity. Our goal is to unite not only individuals but religious communities and networks that extend across the world. The efforts of IRP18 and other such organisations mirror in a very small way the good work of the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief in connecting political leaders. Both political and religious groups need to act together if we are to convince the persecutors that their actions serve neither their faith nor their nation.

I conclude by asking the Minister what the Government’s assessment is of the role that interreligious initiatives can play in strengthening the commitment to Article 18. What steps might the Government take to support and foster more such initiatives? Does she agree with me that, in a way unparalleled in other human rights issues, public policy on freedom of religion or belief is intrinsically linked to theological understanding?

Baroness Berridge (Con):
I shall begin with a quote:

“free to practise a faith or to decide not to follow any faith at all. We are free to build our own churches, synagogues … and mosques and to worship freely”.

No, this is not from the FCO human rights report but from this week’s Home Office counterextremism strategy. In this global village, what is happening overseas may be connected to our domestic context, and the question, “Does religion influence human beings to commit violence?”, has to be tackled by Governments, not just students writing essays. The UN special rapporteur, Dr Heiner Bielefeldt, has said:

“The relevance of the issue with respect to freedom of religion or belief is obvious since violence in the name of religion is a source of many of the most extreme violations of this human right”.

The Department for Education has announced that human rights are to be added to the school curriculum in the UK. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister how freedom of religion or belief is featuring as part of that change. With this domestic background, I am sure that the Minister will be reassuring this House that a change from specific priorities to thematic values in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not downgraded the importance of freedom of religion or belief.

It is vital that the plight of persecuted Muslim minorities around the world is not neglected. While the Foreign Secretary said on Tuesday in the other place that he does not expect the Shia Muslim Ali al-Nimr, a juvenile, to be executed, is the Minister concerned about the recent spate of killings of Shia Muslims in eastern Saudi Arabia? Although perpetrated by people linked to IS, could the Minister undertake to investigate allegations that Saudi government clerics are calling Shia Muslims infidels on TV stations such as Wesal, and specifically investigate to confirm that these stations are not being broadcast here in the UK?

The international headquarters of the Ahmadi Muslims is here in the UK. It was such a relief that last month’s suspected arson attack on the Baitul Futuh mosque in Morden took place while it was unoccupied. However, many of the claims for asylum here in the UK are from Ahmadi Muslims fleeing persecution in Pakistan. This Commonwealth country is going through much communal tension and violence, often in the name of religion. For a Commonwealth country to deny the right to vote unless Ahmadis declare that they are non-Muslim is unacceptable. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at raising this at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Malta.

Lord Harrison (Lab):
My Lords, four times this year writers and bloggers variously identified as humanists, atheists or freethinkers have been murdered in gruesome machete attacks in Bangladesh… I am shocked that the Bangladeshi authorities have brought no suspect to trial. Meanwhile, astonishingly, the Bangladeshi police and government officials have threatened to arrest other secular bloggers under the ICT Act, presumptuously declaring that their output is hateful, a move that surviving Bangla secularists and human rights groups have called a victim-blaming mentality.

Article 18 pertains to thought, conscience and religion or belief. This right is unstintingly and unapologetically clear that political thought includes both the expression of religious devotion and the voicing of objections to religious institutions, religious leaders and religious beliefs and practices. We must be clear that Article 18 applies to everyone, whether religious, humanist, atheist or, indeed, simply secular. What are the Government doing to present and champion to the world the full understanding of Article 18 as it was intended and as the international human rights consensus understands? What are the Government doing to protect atheists such as Alexander Aan in Indonesia, liberals such as Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia and humanists such as Avijit Roy in Bangladesh?

Lord Hylton (CB):
My Lords, this debate is timely because the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recently recognised how churches and faiths contribute to peace and human solidarity. It called on Governments to protect freedom of religion. I trust that today’s debate will reinforce that appeal, which I commend to the Government.

In March I was in Lebanon where more than 1 million refugees from Syria had already been accommodated without using a single camp. I doubt whether that would have been possible had Christians, Muslims and Druze not shared common traditions of welcome and hospitality for their neighbours in distress. In May, with church leaders, I visited the Kurdistan Regional Government. In the capital, Erbil, and near the city of Dohuc, many people displaced from Mosul and Nineveh were being cared for. I went on to the Jazira canton of north-east Syria. It had already taken in many people from other parts of Syria. In the late summer last year, it received even more people fleeing ISIS/Daesh attacks. Once again, I urge the Government to visit Jazira and the other two cantons, which they have so far refused to do.

Lord Suri (Con):
My Lords, my name was also destined for another other topic, on which I am speaking tomorrow. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is undoubtedly the most important document of the past 70 years. The four freedoms, and the associated rights they uphold, are a cornerstone of the liberal democracy that has come to dominate Western politics.

There is something lacking about countries that do not allow freedom of religion or freedom to leave religion. In religiously homogenous societies where religion is a condition of citizenship, such as the Maldives, or those where apostasy is punishable by death, such as Indonesia, one loses the multicultural essence that has helped drive on many societies.

Britain’s long history of religious tolerance, stretching all the way back to the 19th century, is codified in this document and has helped to attract and nurture the diversity that makes us stand out in the world. This country has been actively welcoming towards my own Sikh community and has been extremely accommodating towards our beliefs.

Freedom of religion, when all is said and done, is about the individual. If we believe in the primacy of the individual, we believe in allowing such individuals to exercise their judgment in choosing or, indeed, rejecting their faith. If we believe in that, it is down to us to allow them to make that decision knowing that they will be safe making it and that the full force of the law exists to deter those who would seek to interfere in it.

Lord Alderdice (LD):
It seems that around the UK there is now a pervasive lack of knowledge and understanding of what religion is about. The result has been that many in the establishment—our universities, our Government and our Civil Service—do not really understand what religious faith is about and what it means. They then lack sympathy for these matters, so that freedom of religion is relegated much further down the pecking order than freedom of many other principles, orientations or interests. It is not considered as a serious matter by many of those in authority.

…The failure to understand this and that fundamentalist ways of holding religious belief are not actually congruent with multifaith and multicultural societies means that we have, in many ways, been much too tolerant of intolerance, including among some of our allies.

I want to finish by remarking on this question of whether or not economic freedom is now regarded by the Government as more important than religious freedom. Our tolerance of the intolerance of our economic partner, Saudi Arabia, led to massive amounts of money going into fostering fundamentalism in the Islamic world, and the price we are paying is horrible. Can the Minister tell us whether or not Her Majesty’s Government regard economic freedom as being of a higher and more significant order than that of religious freedom?

Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab):
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this timely, albeit brief, debate. Sadly, many cases mentioned today and highlighted in the FCO’s Human Rights and Democracy Report 2014 show the harsh reality of the world today. I have heard speculation that the annual report may stop. I hope the Minister will be able to refute that by committing today to continue to publish it every year for the rest of this Parliament. Countries that do not respect religious freedom invariably do not respect other basic human rights. That is why, as a humanist and a gay man, I share all of the concerns expressed today. The Minister has said she wants the Government to focus more strongly on making freedom of religion or belief part of the answer to extremism across government. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned the Home Office counter-extremism strategy. How will this link up with FCO activities? Will it involve further engagement with Saudi Arabia, whose record on human rights and religious freedom, as we have heard in the debate, is absolutely appalling? I do not understand how it will counter extremism.

I am also grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement in the Chamber today. The Chinese state visit this week gives us an opportunity to evaluate the impact that our relationship has had on human rights in China. The Prime Minister’s spokeswoman said that developing a strong and engaged relationship,

“means we are able to talk to them … frankly and with mutual respect”.

Yet the campaign group Human Rights Watch has documented, over the last three years, a rapid deterioration in human rights in China, as we also heard during the debate on the Statement. George Osborne said during his visit to China that he addressed the issue of human rights privately,

“in the context of also talking about issues like economic development”.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us precisely what steps he took while in western China to raise the treatment of the area’s minority Muslim community, which faces restrictions on religious observance under the guise of anti-terrorism measures. Despite the importance of the relationship with China, we must not shirk from raising human rights issues if it fails to adhere to domestic and international law.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con):
This Government remains firmly committed to promoting and protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief around the world. Under our new strategic approach to human rights, we have refocused our work around three new themes; I made some reference to this on the Floor of the House a short while ago when I answered the Urgent Question on China. Our new approach will be set out in the annual report that will be published—as its very name is “annual report”, I certainly expect it to continue to be just that. I appreciate that most people get hold of these things online rather than in print, but we provide access in various ways.

The three themes are: democratic values and the rule of law; strengthening the rules-based international system; and human rights for a stable world. Our work on freedom of religion or belief has an integral place under each of them. Just a short while earlier in the Chamber, I explained clearly that one needs to read the full transcript of the PUS’s exchange with the Select Committee because it made very clear that the work on freedom of religion or belief is integral to what the Foreign Office does. It is embedded—as I was able to reassure one NGO, not buried but embedded—and vibrant across the FCO. For example, only where freedom of religion or belief is protected can we expect to see democratic values and the rule of law being fully implemented.

To the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, I say very strongly that freedom of religion or belief must include the right to have no belief, or, indeed, to change one’s religion, and we certainly make that clear. We are shocked by the brutal murders of four secular bloggers in Bangladesh this year. The British Government have been unequivocal in their condemnation of those murders. There must be space for free speech in Bangladesh. These incidents must stop, and we have made that clear to the Government. All this is why we fund targeted projects and lobby on individual cases of discrimination or persecution.

Our second theme, making a strong contribution to strengthening the rules-based international system, is why, in the United Nations, for example, we ensure that there are regular resolutions that focus on the full definition of freedom of religion or belief, as set out in Article 18, rather than on the narrower focus on religious intolerance as put forward in the parallel resolutions tabled by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. We also use the universal periodic review to raise issues with individual countries.

Under our third theme—human rights for a stable world—freedom of religion or belief is central to so much of what we do. In societies where freedom of religion or belief is protected, and where discrimination against others on the basis of their religion or belief is seen as unacceptable, it is much harder for extremist views to take root. Governments need to learn from that lesson. In all our work, we continually make the case for freedom of religion or belief, and we implement it in practice through our project work. With regard to aid, of course our aid relationship with any Government is based on an assessment of their commitment to our partnership principles, which include human rights. DfID and the FCO continue to raise the rights of minorities at the highest levels of government. When we give aid, we feel we have a responsibility to see how effectively the Government are able to deploy it. To that end, we are funding a project to develop lesson plans for primary school teachers in the Middle East that will help them to teach the values that are important. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, on this. The key to success in all these matters is education. We need to ensure that children appreciate from the earliest stage that for society to be stable and fair, everyone must be valued equally, regardless of their religion or belief or the fact that they have no belief.

I mentioned a moment ago a project we are undertaking in the Middle East. Speaking of that area, I want to express the Government’s horror at the attacks being carried out by ISIL against those who do not acquiesce to its brutal ideology. It does not discriminate. It has committed atrocities against Christians, Yazidis, Muslims, Turkmen and others. I recently had a meeting in New York with very brave Yazidis who are trying to assist people in their communities. ISIL is persecuting individuals and communities on the basis of their religion, belief or ethnicity, and its murderous campaign has resulted in the most appalling humanitarian crisis of our time.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the fact that some have called for this slaughter to be called genocide. As I have remarked on previous occasions, UK support for international criminal justice and accountability is a fundamental aspect of our foreign policy. The International Criminal Court plays the key role in entrenching the rule of law and acting as a deterrent to atrocities, placing a spotlight on individual responsibility, supporting victims and helping to establish an historical narrative of accountability. We will continue to work through the ICC to take forward the important commitments made by PM Abadi to investigate all human rights abuses and violations. Those who seek to block our efforts with regard to Syria—the Assad Government—will find that we will not give up; neither will we give up when Russia opposes us.

I was also asked in particular about countering violent extremism. The strategy was launched by the Home Office, but we are already looking very carefully at how we work cross-departmentally, and I hope to be able to give further information as we develop that work. However, cross-departmental work is key to it.

Lord Alton of Liverpool:
Before the Minister leaves that important passage of her speech, might I press her further? Although I appreciate the work that she has done with the International Criminal Court, and she is of course right that upholding international law falls within its remit, nothing stops a sovereign Government, such as that of the United Kingdom, nevertheless saying that what is occurring is genocide, which would place further pressure on the international authorities and perhaps be a counterbalance to the Russian veto in the Security Council. Will she reflect on that further?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns:
My Lords, I will certainly continue to reflect on that. There have been other occasions when people have asked us to refer to something as genocide where one can see brutality. We have always been very firm in ensuring that we follow the path of saying that we accept as genocide what the international judicial system determines as genocide, but I would never refuse to reflect on the views of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, as I have far too great respect for him.

We have recently launched a project promoting legal and social protection for freedom of religion or belief in Iraq. This project aims to prevent intolerance and violence towards religious communities by inspiring key leaders in Iraqi society to become defenders of freedom of religion or belief. The UK continues to encourage influential religious leaders in Iraq to speak out publicly and condemn sectarian violence.

The best defence against radicalisation, the best guarantee of stability and sustainable growth the world over, is inclusive and accountable government. That means government that guarantees the right of every individual to follow the religion or belief of their choice, or no belief, both in private and in public. It is a fundamental freedom that underpins many of the others. Building inclusive, accountable government in the Middle East is going to take some long time, but we are determined to stay the course.

Since we last debated these matters in the summer, the Government have been working on a number of specific areas. I will mention one or two, but I want to leave time to refer to matters raised by noble Lords. First, we have been working actively with our international partners to ensure that discussions about extremism take account of the role of religious repression as a motivator. Secondly, we strongly supported the meeting of the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief that took place last month in New York at the United Nations General Assembly. I was delighted that this House was well represented and that we were able to provide support by offering a reception to delegates. On that note, I commend the international work of my noble friend Lady Berridge on freedom of religion and belief. Thirdly, last month in Paris, we took part in the French-led workshop on religious minorities in the Middle East. We want to build on that work, and my FCO colleague, Tobias Ellwood MP, and I will be hosting a further workshop next month on the situation facing Christians and other minorities in the Middle East. It was part of our manifesto commitment to look specifically at Christians in the Middle East, and that is what we shall do. We are continuing to explore how we can work more closely together with our US counterparts—one example being taking part in a transatlantic dialogue in Washington earlier this month.

On a related matter, we have been working with faith leaders from all communities to build a safer and more secure world. I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry about the importance of inter-religious work. The critical role of faith leaders was brought home to me during my visit two weeks ago to eastern DRC. I was honoured to be able to visit a UK-funded programme outside Goma, run by the NGO Tearfund, that works with local faith leaders to build community support groups for sexual violence survivors. Importantly, the project draws on the influence of the faith leaders within their communities to challenge some of the attitudes to victims of sexual violence and address the stigma many survivors face after their attack. I pay heartfelt tribute to those local Anglican, Catholic and Muslim leaders who spoke with one voice about the importance of working together in such difficult circumstances.

I was appalled this week to learn that there have been further attacks by armed groups on two of the communities nearby which host Tearfund’s work. It brings it home to us when communities have once again been subject to rape, kidnap and assault. That was in DRC, but we heard movingly from other noble Lords, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who spoke about Nigeria, where Boko Haram carries out its horrific attacks. That must give us all the strength to continue. It gives the Government the strength to argue the case to Governments around the world, without hesitation and without feeling that we are inhibited by any economic relationship, because it is the right thing to do.

Lord Alton of Liverpool:
My Lords, the Minister referred to an annual human rights report. Can she at least ensure that an opportunity arises for noble Lords to debate that report in Government time?

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in China, following reports that human rights lawyer, Zhang Kai, imminently faces a severe prison sentence or the death penalty for defending civil liberties.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire):
We are in the middle of a hugely positive state visit, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said will benefit not just our nations and our peoples, but the wider world. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had extensive discussions with President Xi Jinping and his delegation. These discussions continue today, including when the Prime Minister hosts President Xi at Chequers.

As we have made very clear, the strong relationship that we are building allows us to discuss all issues. No issue, including human rights, is off the table. The UK-China joint statement that we have agreed commits both sides to continuing our dialogue on human rights and the rule of law.

Turning to the case of Zhang Kai, we are aware that he has been accused of “endangering state security” and “assembling a crowd” to “disrupt social order”, apparently in relation to his work with Churches in Zhejiang province. We are concerned that his whereabouts are undisclosed, and that he has reportedly been denied access to legal representation.

At the UK-China human rights dialogue, which was held in Beijing in April this year, we raised issues relating to religious freedom in China, including the destruction of churches and religious symbols in Zhejiang province. We raised a number of related individual cases. A transparent legal system is a vital component of the rule of law, and we urge the Chinese authorities to ensure that proper judicial standards are upheld.

Fiona Bruce:
I thank the Minister for his reply, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question.

This is, of course, an urgent matter because of the imminent risk that the lawyer Zhang Kai could be sentenced to as many as 15 years in prison—or even the death penalty, given that he faces grave charges including threatening national security—and the risk that there could be a closed trial. Zhang Kai’s family do not know of his situation, and his lawyer has tried several times to ascertain it. The matter is also urgent because of wider concern that China’s human rights position should be raised directly with President Xi Jinping during his state visit, which ends tomorrow.

Zhang Kai’s case is significant not only in itself, but because he is one of nearly 300 lawyers and human rights defenders who have been detained since July this year. At least 20 are still in custody or have disappeared, their whereabouts unknown. We know from the example of the case of Gao Zhisheng—another prominent human rights lawyer, who defended, among others, members of the Falun Gong movement and who was “disappeared” on several occasions and imprisoned in solitary confinement for three years, where he was severely tortured—that the consequences of secretive detention can be grave.

Lawyer Zhang Kai had been advising Churches in China’s Zhejiang province in connection with the demolition of churches and the forcible destruction of more than 1,500 crosses in Zhejiang over the past two years—a gross violation of freedom of religion or belief. The Churches affected include both unregistered and state-approved Catholic and Protestant Churches.

As we have heard, Zhang’s is not the only case. Nineteen-year-old student activist Joshua Wong faces court next week for inciting unlawful assembly, and I understand that among those who are also in secret detention is Wang Yu, a fearless defender of feminist activists and the victims of rape. Thousands of political prisoners also continue to languish in Chinese jails, the most famous being Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo, who is halfway through an 11-year sentence for peacefully advocating democratic change. Members may well wish to raise other cases, including, perhaps, events in Tibet and Xinjiang, and the plight of the Uighurs.

As chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, I welcome the opportunity to engage with China. The Select Committee on International Development met representatives from the Chinese delegation yesterday to discuss the sustainable development goals, which include a commitment to promoting peaceful and inclusive societies and access to justice for all. I recognise the significance of the business relationship and the importance of dialogue with China on a range of issues, including trade, but I hope that dialogue on human rights, freedom of thought, speech and assembly, and the rule of law will also be placed at the centre of the relationship. It is well recognised that the promotion of such freedoms contributes to better business and economic outcomes for the peoples involved. The two go hand in hand.

As the United Kingdom’s relationship with China develops, it is good for us to remember the words of Martin Luther King:

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Mr Swire:
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does in this area. We work closely together in relation to other countries. This evening’s Adjournment debate is on Burma, and she will no doubt take part in it.

In respect of China and human rights, I am sure that many Members on both sides of the House will want to know what was discussed and when. I shall do my best to answer that question, although I stress that the state visit is still under way. I know that the Leader of the Opposition used an opportunity to discuss these matters when he had a meeting with the President.

I do not think that it is really a question of what we have raised. What I find interesting is what the President said during yesterday’s Downing Street press conference when asked about human rights. He said—among other things—

“All countries need to continuously improve and strengthen human rights protection to meet the needs of the time and the people. And on the issue of human rights, I think the people of our respective countries are in the position—in the best position to tell. And China is ready to, on the basis of equality and mutual respect, increase exchanges and co-operation with the UK and other countries in the area of human rights. Thank you.”

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the relationship between our two countries becomes ever closer, we are in a position to raise these matters continually, particularly the extremely concerning individual cases to which she referred.

Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab):
The freedom to practise our religion is one of the most fundamental of human rights. For many people around the world, including in China, religious belief defines who they are. It should therefore be a matter of great concern to this House when those rights are infringed wherever that happens across the globe.

As we have heard, since the summer a large number of lawyers and human rights activists in China have been targeted and detained, including Zhang Kai, whose case was raised by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Can the Minister give the House any further information about the circumstances that led up to Zhang Kai’s detention and that of other human rights defenders and activists?

Article 18 of the UN declaration of human rights, says that:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

Can the Minister also confirm that article 36 of the constitution of the People’s Republic of China specifies that

“citizens enjoy freedom of religious belief”,

but then goes on to say that

“The state protects normal religious activities”?

Will he tell the House what his understanding is of this term and what it means for the practice of religion and, in particular, Christianity, in China?

Have Ministers had an opportunity to raise these concerns with their Chinese counterparts, either before the current state visit or during it? Does the Minister have any information about when any case against Mr Zhang might be heard?

The Prime Minister has said that the developing trade relationship between the UK and China provides an opportunity for further dialogue. We agree. Will the Minister therefore undertake to the House, if the Government have not already done so, to raise this case during the remainder of the state visit, as my hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, both in their places in the House now, will do later today?

Mr Swire:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks. There is a whole range of cases about which we are concerned. The case in Zhejiang is not new. If the hon. Lady trawls back through Hansard, she will see that I answered a question raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on this back in June, when I talked about our concerns about restrictions on Christianity particularly in Zhejiang province. I went on to say:

“We raised these, and our broad range of concerns around religious freedom, directly with Chinese officials during the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue in April this year. We have also highlighted them publicly in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy.”

Further to that, in September I answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). I reiterate what I said then:

“I am aware of reports that lawyer Zhang Kai was detained on 25 August, alongside two of his assistants, Liu Peng and Fang Xiangui, and members of a Christian congregation.

I am concerned that this is reflective of the wider situation facing rights lawyers in China. Reports suggest that over 200 lawyers have been detained or questioned since 9 July, and the space in which they operate is increasingly constrained.

The UK supported an EU statement of 15 July which said the detentions raised serious questions about China’s commitment to strengthening the rule of law. We have ongoing discussions with the Chinese authorities on human rights and rule of law issues, and discussed these matters in detail during the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue in April.”

I then went on to say what I have said in answer to an earlier question.

On the question of whether this case and other cases will be addressed, a number of cases are always being addressed. This is not just a one-off and I cannot gainsay what the Prime Minister might say. The Chancellor will of course be with the President in Manchester tomorrow, and there will be private meeting between the President and the Prime Minister at Chequers later this evening. I do not know what will be on the agenda, but I do know they have an ever-closer relationship and these matters are continuously being discussed.

Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con):
May I raise the case of a very old man—he is 94—called Cosma Shi Enxiang, who died in prison in China last year? His only crime was that he was a Catholic bishop who refused to kowtow to the state. This is a very serious matter; it is the sort of thing that was happening in this country in the 16th century. The House does not want vague assurances from the Minister; we want to know that, while we respect the world’s growing superpower and want to trade with it, we are absolutely fearless in these matters and that during this visit our leadership will raise these matters with the Chinese President.

Mr Swire:
We certainly do not see this visit as presenting a binary choice between greater economic co-operation and human rights, as some would have us do. I reject that utterly. As I have said, there are individual cases that have been raised consistently. We are one of the few countries to have an annual human rights dialogue with China, and we are of the view that that gives us the right format and architecture within which to raise these specific individual cases. I believe that that is the right way to pursue these matters. As our relationship becomes ever closer, we are in a better position to discuss these very worrying cases with our Chinese counterparts.

Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP):
Will the Government use every opportunity, including those that arise this week, to make it clear to China that human rights and equality are a fundamental part of achieving greater and fairer economic growth? Given that the Chinese ambassador said at the weekend that no one would be put behind bars simply for criticising the Government, will the Minister join the United States Secretary of State John Kerry in calling for the release of Zhang Kai? If not, why not? More broadly, will he commit to speaking out, without fear or favour, against the use of the death penalty, even when it is used by strategic allies such as the United States, Saudi Arabia and China?

Mr Swire:
We do speak out without fear or favour. The United States is responsible for making its own comments on various matters. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier comment that we supported an EU statement on 15 July on the detentions in Zhejiang. We believe that that is the right place for us to do that, along with our bilateral discussions with the Chinese themselves.

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con):
As we have heard yet again, freedom of speech and dissent in China are being brutally repressed, not least in Tibet, where the mere possession of a photograph of the Dalai Lama can result in imprisonment or worse. In the UK, our democracy is built on the principle of free speech, so can the Minister tell me why protesters in the Mall exercising their right to draw attention to human rights abuses in Tibet were this week corralled behind barricades at the back while Chinese state-sponsored cheerleaders were given “Love China” T-shirts, Chinese diplomatic bags and a prime position at the front?

Mr Swire:
My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner for Tibet and he will know that, after the death of the senior Tibetan Buddhist, Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, in July, we supported an EU statement and the remarks of a Foreign Office spokesman were carried in the media. Prior to Tenzin’s death, I continued to call for his release, including in parliamentary debates on Tibet in June and in December 2014.

Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab):
I warmly thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for bringing this issue to the House. I am sure that this debate will be watched by people in China, so this is an important occasion. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. Does the Minister agree that our ability to raise our voice and put pressure on China because of its gross violations of human rights is in part based on the recognition that this country has itself made a commitment to human rights? Does he recognise that the increasingly negative tone being used in this country to describe human rights as a problem—even to the point of describing the legislation as “Labour’s Human Rights Act”, which I cannot believe is a compliment—undermines our ability to champion human rights abroad? We cannot champion human rights abroad if we regard them as a nuisance at home. Will he ensure that he and his Government stand up for human rights in this country, as part of our policy of championing them in other parts of the world?

Mr Swire:
The right hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right. It is incredibly important to have good human rights in our own country before we preach to others, and I believe that we do. In my travels around the globe—looking after two thirds of the world, as I am obliged to do—I have observed that our own human rights are way better than those in the majority of countries. A second thing that gives us a huge moral case when we go round the world is that this Government have pledged to spend 0.7% of our GDP on international aid. Those two factors give the United Kingdom a good say at any table.

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con):
While I welcome the commitment of the Minister and the Government to greater intimacy between this country and China in economic terms, the concern of many people in this country is that we rest on carefully crafted diplomatic language when it comes to discussing human rights. We may have an architecture for dialogue, but people are looking for delivered change and a fundamental change in attitude. What will happen if there is no discernible change in outcomes and between what the Chinese say to us and what they practice? What sanctions or actions will the Government take?

Mr Swire:
I subscribe to the words that

“persuasion and dialogue achieve more than confrontation and empty rhetoric.”

Those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Yes, the Prime Minister of the time—Tony Blair, in October 1998.

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab):
While we of course have to trade with all kinds of countries, do we really have to grovel to every dictatorship going that treats human rights with such total contempt as China is doing?

Mr Swire:
I would only say to the hon. Gentleman that I agree with another statement:

“We will make our position clear as we always do, but the best way to do it is without grandstanding or hectoring”.

Those are the words of the Prime Minister—Tony Blair, back in 1998.

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab):
May I associate myself with your kind remarks about Michael Meacher, Mr Speaker? My experience of working with Michael was somewhat different, in that I was employed by him here for two years in the late-1980s. If one way in which we should judge people is by how they treat their employees, particularly the more difficult and truculent ones, that is further evidence of his tolerance and generosity of spirit.

On the Chancellor’s recent visit to China, he was described by Chinese state media as

“the first Western official in recent years who focused on business potential rather than raising a magnifying glass to the ‘human rights issue’”.

Was not Ai Weiwei right this week when he said that the Government are sacrificing essential values for short-term gain?

Mr Swire:
No, he was absolutely wrong. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor did raise human rights during his visit to China. In Xinjiang, he addressed the case of Ilham Tohti and called for his release. It is not right to say that when Ministers travel in China and meet our Chinese counterparts here in the UK, we do not raise such cases. The hon. Gentleman is precisely wrong.

Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con):
In advance of the state visit, I was contacted by Rev. Lorelli Hilliard, the vicar of St John with St Philip in Nelson, who expressed concerns about religious freedom in China. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our improving commercial relationship certainly does not prevent us from speaking frankly and candidly with the Chinese about these issues, and may even be helpful?

Mr Swire:
Yes, that is certainly the case. As we get ever closer in our relationship and our dialogue, so we are able to raise these difficult issues with our Chinese counterparts. Mr Speaker, you presided over the speech by President Xi in the Royal Gallery in which he referred to the ever-growing and ever-closer links, particularly with British parliamentarians, and invited more British parliamentarians to go to China. I submit that that would be an extraordinarily good way of forging closer relationships and raising these cases, as parliamentarians, in China.

Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op):
Of course we should be engaging with China, and promoting dialogue and trade, but there has been a huge sense this week that the Government are willing to sell themselves to China for any price, especially on this absurd nuclear energy deal—I say that as a supporter of nuclear energy. Surely we should have the moral confidence to stand up for what we believe in as a country, especially on political freedom and on religious freedom. Ultimately, other nations will respect us more if we are willing to do that.

Mr Swire:
I do not regard as ridiculous more than £30 billion-worth of investment from China into the UK, let alone into our nuclear industry. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if the previous Government had paid more attention to the gap in our energy provision, we would not find ourselves in the position we are in.

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD):
The Minister will have heard the Chinese President say:

“we have found a part of human rights development suited to China’s national conditions.”

Will the Minister explain what part of human rights development, if any, allows for the possible execution of Zhang Kai, the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, the alleged forced harvesting of organs and the harassment of Ai Weiwei? Why, at a time when the UK should be strengthening its commitment to human rights, does Sir Simon McDonald, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, say that human rights are no longer a priority for the UK Government?

Mr Swire:
Human rights are actually being brought into the mainstream work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because we think they inform everything we do on a day-to-day basis. The right hon. Gentleman quoted part of what the President said and I shall just cite the last bit of it:

“China is ready to, on the basis of equality and mutual respect, increase exchanges and cooperation with the UK and other countries in the area of human rights.”

That seems to me to be very positive indeed.

Questions on China in the House of Lords

World Watch Monitor reports that Asia Bibi’s lawyer visited her on 21 October, and she is “healthy and safe.” Her husband Masih confirmed that he had visited his wife with Saif-ul-Malook, and that none of his daughters accompanied them on this visit. He could see “a glimmer of hope” on Asia’s face.

Malook said the Supreme Court hearing should begin sometime in January or February 2016. He remains “quite hopeful” she would be acquitted and released, he said. Citing “insufficient evidence” against her, he has not found sufficient legal grounds against her under either civil or Islamic law.

PREVIOUS (22 July 2015)

Today the Supreme Court in Pakistan suspended Asia Bibi’s execution and gave her leave to appeal. No hearing date was set. The BBC’s Shaimaa Khalil in Islamabad said this is the first time in the case that there has been a glimmer of hope for her.

On 7 July, the Mail Online reported that her husband has said he fears locals will beat her to death even if she is acquitted. He said his family had been ‘broken’ by the pain of living without his wife Asia Bibi, 50, who has been in prison for five years awaiting a death sentence for blasphemy.

Asia is the first woman sentenced to hang under Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy law, but her husband of 22 years still insists she’s been framed and is begging the Supreme Court to acquit her.

Yet he revealed that even if she is freed, they will never be able to return to their home as clerics want her dead and have put a bounty on her head. They would pay as little as £60 for her to be dead, he said.

Read more

PREVIOUS (16 October 2014)

In spite of protests within Pakistan and abroad against the country’s blasphemy laws, the Lahore High Court today upheld the death sentence for a Christian mother accused of insulting Islam’s prophet.

Aasiya Noreen, commonly known as Asia Bibi, is the first woman to be sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan. Arrested in June 2009 after Muslim co-workers in a berry field 60 miles west of Lahore beat her when she refused to convert to Islam, her death sentence was announced in November 2010.

Bibi’s husband, Ashiq Masih, told Morning Star News that they were hoping for some relief, but that the verdict had devastated the family. “I met Asia in prison a month ago,” he said. “She’s fine and was hoping to hear good news, but, alas, our ordeal is not over yet.”

Her lawyers have indicated they will take the case to the Supreme Court – which could take up to three years.

The BBC reports that blasphemy is a highly sensitive issue in Pakistan. Critics argue that blasphemy laws are frequently misused to settle personal scores and that members of minority groups are often unfairly targeted. Since the 1990s, scores of Christians have been convicted for desecrating the Koran or for blasphemy. While most of them have been sentenced to death by the lower courts, many sentences have been overturned due to lack of evidence. Muslims constitute a majority of those prosecuted, followed by minority Ahmadis.

More

House of Lords: Answers to written questions on 28 October:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans has had his question, regarding the blasphemy laws in Pakistan in light of the decision to uphold the death penalty against Asia Bibi, answered by Foreign Office Minister Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con).

Baroness Anelay said that the Government are concerned to hear about the case of Asia Bibi and reports that a court has upheld the imposition of the death penalty. The Minister emphasised that the Government regularly raised the misuse of blasphemy laws both against Muslims and against religious minorities.

On 14 October Secretary of State John Kerry submitted the 2014 International Religious Freedom Report to the United States Congress.

Now in its 17th year, this congressionally-mandated Report comprises almost 200 distinct reports on countries and territories worldwide and continues to reflect the United States’ commitment to, and advancement of, the right of every person to freedom of religion or belief.

“Religious freedom extends way beyond mere tolerance,” John Kerry told reporters at a news conference. The concept, he said, “demands that the practitioners of one faith understand that they have no right to coerce others into submission, conversion or silence, or to literally take their lives because of their beliefs.”

Religion News Service reported that it is non-state actors, Kerry said at a State Department press conference, that are today “the principal persecutors and preventers of religious tolerance and practice.”

He called out these groups by name, topping the list with the Islamic State but referring to it as “Daesh,” a term with derogatory undertones used by other governments and many Arabs. Kerry continued with similarly violent groups: “al-Qaida, al-Shabab, Boko Haram.”

“All have been guilty of vicious acts of unprovoked violence,” Kerry said, describing the groups’ murder and enslavement of the innocent. “Children have been among the victims.”

Kerry released the report alongside Rabbi David Saperstein, the ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, who  highlighted other worrisome trends.

Saperstein decried blasphemy laws and apostasy laws in countries including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Sudan.

“The United States uniformly opposes such laws, which are used to oppress those whose religious beliefs happen to offend the majority,” Saperstein said. “Such laws are inconsistent with international human rights and fundamental freedoms, and we will continue to call for their universal repeal.”

He also pointed to governments that abuse their citizens “for simply exercising their faith or identifying with a religious community.”

“We see this dramatized by the plight of countless numbers of prisoners of conscience,” he said, and spoke of his travels to Vietnam, where he “saw firsthand how religious groups are forced to undergo onerous and arbitrary registration process to legally operate.”

The report itself quotes David Saperstein to explain its purpose: “There is an absolute and unequivocal need to give voice to the religiously oppressed in every land afraid to speak of what they believe in; who face death and live in fear, who worship in underground churches, mosques or temples, who feel so desperate that they flee their homes to avoid killing and persecution simply because they love God in their own way or question the existence of God.”

The report this year did not include what is often the most anticipated aspect: the listing of “Countries of Particular Concern.” The CPCs are not always tied to the report and will be released soon, said a State Department spokesman.

The countries currently on the CPC list are: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

The full report

Aid to the Church in Need have launched Persecuted and Forgotten? A report on Christians oppressed for their Faith 2013-2015 in Parliament, accompanied by an endorsement from Prime Minister David Cameron.

He wrote “The persecution of Christians, and indeed individuals of all faiths, anywhere in the world, is of profound concern to me. The freedom to practice, change and share your faith or belief without discrimination or violent opposition is a fundamental human right that all people should enjoy. I believe that societies which aim to guarantee freedom of religion or belief are stronger, fairer and more confident.”

“Every day in countries across the world, Christians are systematically discriminated against, exploited and even driven from their homes because of their faith. No believer should have to live in fear, and this is why this government is committed to promoting religious freedom and tolerance at home and around the world.”

The report assesses the deepening plight of Christians in 22 countries of concern. Drawing on testimony from witnesses of persecution, the report shows why Christians are the world’s most persecuted faith group.

Principal findings

• At a time when numbers of displaced and refugees hit an all-time high, Islamist groups have carried out religiously-motivated ethnic cleansing of Christians notably in parts of Africa and the Middle East. If this continues, the Church’s survival in these regions is threatened.
• The fear of genocide – in many cases well founded – has prompted an exodus of Christians, notably from the Middle East and parts of Africa
• As a result of this exodus, Christianity is on course to disappear from Iraq within possibly five years – unless emergency help is provided on a massively increased scale at an international level
• A massive exodus of Christians in other parts of the Middle East, notably Syria combined with increasing pressures on the faithful in Saudi Arabia and Iran mean that the Church is being silenced and driven out of its ancient biblical heartland
• The rise of militant Islamist groups in Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania and other parts of Africa is destabilising the Christian presence on the one continent which until now has been the Church’s brightest hope for the future
• Christians have been targeted by nationalist religious movements – Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist – many of which increasingly see Christianity as a foreign ‘colonial’ import, worthy of suspicion as a result of its perceived links with the West which is seen as corrupt and exploitative
• The decline of Christianity in many countries of concern has potentially profound significance regarding prospects for peace as Christians have traditionally been important ‘peace builders’ in society
• Totalitarian regimes, including China, have put increasing pressures on Christianity which is perceived as a threat not least because of growing ‘underground’ support

Read the executive summary

Obtain the full report

CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON THE TREATMENT OF PAKISTAN’S CHRISTIANS AND OTHER MINORITIES  – NOVEMBER HEARINGS AT WESTMINSTER

All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief

Parliamentary Inquiry Call for Evidence

 ‘The Plight of Minority Religious or Belief Groups in Pakistan and as Refugees: Addressing Current UK & UNHCR Policy’

Pakistan represents one of the worst situations for minority religious or belief groups around the world and is rife with persecution on the grounds of religion or belief by both state and non-state actors. With the current policies and laws that Pakistani officials are advancing at both international and domestic levels, including the notorious blasphemy laws, the right of Pakistan’s citizens to freedom of religion or belief is looking unlikely to be upheld and protected in the near future. In addition to these concerns, the UK Home Office and UNHCR, relying it seems on the recent UK Supreme Court Upper Tier case (AK and SK (Christians: risk) Pakistan CG [2014] UKUT 569 (IAC)), appears to have a policy that Pakistani religious minorities treatment is not severe enough to grant these individuals refugee status.

While freedom of religion or belief is a protected right under international law and is a clear basis for asylum in the 1951 Refugee Convention, as well as the UK’s current vulnerable persons relocation scheme, the key question remains in UK and international institutions whether all Pakistani minority religious or belief communities’ treatment in Pakistan or abroad ‘amounts to a real risk of persecution’.

In order to be able to look at the current UK and UNHCR policy regarding minority Pakistani religious or belief groups and its validity, the current conditions for such groups living in Pakistan and as refugees will need to be understood. The APPG on International Freedom of Religion or Belief is currently calling for submissions from charities, experts, lawyers, academics, faith-communities and individuals with personal experiences on their concerns, and suggestions on:

• What circumstances minority religious or belief groups living in Pakistan currently face; both vis-à-vis State and non-State actors
• What circumstances minority religious or belief groups having left Pakistan as asylum seekers currently face
• What the current UK and UNHCR policy regarding each minority Pakistani religious or belief community is, whether changes to current policy are required, how these policies and Upper Tier Tribunal Decisions are related, and how any changes should be done

We particularly welcome testimonies from individuals who have recently sought asylum in UK on the grounds of persecution for their faith or belief.

Each submission should be no longer than 3 pages, and clearly indicate the organisation and/or author of the statement. The submissions will contribute to a new report written by the APPG on the subject. The APPG can withhold the identities of authors of statements in the report, if a request for anonymity is clearly made in the submission.

Written submissions may result in individuals or organisations being invited to give oral testimonies at a formal hearing in the Houses of Parliament before selected parliamentarians on 10 November (9:00 – 10:30) and 11 November(10:00 – 12:00) in Portcullis House, Room R. The APPG holds the right to use or not to use submissions in its reporting.

Submissions should be sent to katharinee.thane@parliament.uk . The deadline for submissions is 5.00pm, 3 November 2015.

A report from World Watch Monitor highlights a relatively unknown militant group that has intensified attacks in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), raising fears of the emergence of a new jihadist organisation in central Africa.

It concludes: “MDI constitutes a real security threat for the DR Congo and the entire central African region. It adds to the list of radical groups operating across the continent, with Boko Haram active in Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon and Chad, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and its affiliated groups active across the Sahara region, and the Somalia-based Al-Shabaab in East Africa.”

Here is the article in full:

The vast country of DRC borders Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania to its east. A group of militants originally rooted in a rebel movement to overthrow Uganda’s government and replace it with an Islamist fundamentalist state, but forced to re-locate over the border into DRC, has been carrying out murders of local people, far from the attention of most of the world’s major media.

Attacks including murder, looting, abduction and rape are carried out on an almost weekly basis. At least 19 people lost their lives in four separate attacks in September alone, according to local sources. On 26 September, two people were killed as their truck was ambushed near Kokola village. Five days earlier, militants fired on a truck between Eringeti and Kokola. The passengers managed to flee unharmed, but the truck was looted and set on fire.

On 15 September, three people, including two women and a community leader, were killed in Kokola. Three others, including a police officer, were killed near Oicha; they went out to hunt on 5 September but never returned. Their bodies were found three weeks later, beheaded and decaying. Over the same period, 11 people have also been massacred by suspected militants in various other locations in the Beni area.

Beni is a predominantly Christian area, as is most of the DRC, but Independent Catholic News quotes reports that have stated that, within a few years, the number of Muslims in eastern DRC has risen from 1% to 10%.

According to the 2014 Journal of International Organisations Studies, 28 of the 44 mosques (63%) in the Medina region of DRC, about 50 miles from Beni, were erected between 2005 and 2012.

“There were very few Muslims in eastern DR Congo until Islamic missionaries declared sharia over their claimed caliphate between Beni, Eringeti and the border of Uganda,” said a local church leader, who wished to remain anonymous.

“To enforce their caliphate, they killed people along their declared ‘boundaries’ and dumped their bodies to make the point. To those who are carrying out these attacks, we are all Christians and obstacles to Islamic rule with sharia over eastern Congo. But this barely got the world’s attention.”

The National Association for the Liberation of Uganda (NALU) handed itself over to the Ugandan government when their needs were met in 2007.

Local bishops and civil society have, however, repeatedly denounced the resurgence of violence still carried out in the name of ADF-NALU, but which has now taken the form of a jihadist organisation called Muslim Defence International (MDI).

In a letter released in May, the Bishops of the Province of Bukavu (eastern DRC) denounced a “climate of genocide” and the passivity of the Congolese State and international community.

“Does the situation have to deteriorate even more before the international community takes measures against jihadism?” asked the Bishops, according to whom “a strategy of forced displacement of populations is taking place in order to gradually occupy the land and install outbreaks of religious fundamentalism and terrorist training bases”, the Catholic news agency Fides reported.

According to the Beni-based Study Center for the Promotion of Peace, Democracy and Human Rights (CEPADHO by its French acronym), October 2015 marks one year since the beginning of this latest series of deadly attacks, which have claimed about 600 lives in Beni and the surrounding areas, with about 800 kidnapped, according to WWM sources. They say the wave of violence has sparked the mass displacement of more than half a million people, including some who have fled to other countries.

A report released in May 2015 by the UN Office for Human Rights in the DRC, covering the period between October 2014 and January 2015, highlights the vulnerability of the Beni population due to the upsurge of violence committed by MDI militants. The attacks it reports were executed in a systematic manner with extreme brutality, as the perpetrators indiscriminately targeted men, women and children, says the report.

“To enforce their caliphate, they killed people along their declared ‘boundaries’ and dumped their bodies to make the point. To those who are carrying out these attacks, we are all Christians and obstacles to Islamic rule,” said a church leader.

Most of the victims were killed by machetes, axes and hammers in order to avoid making a lot of noise. Some of them were burned alive in their homes, while others were shot as they were trying to flee. Other victims, including women and children, were mainly abducted in order to carry goods that had been plundered, or enrolled by force to participate in further attacks, or taken as sex slaves.

The recourse to extreme brutality followed a clear strategy aimed at killing “the maximum [number] of individuals within a very short timeframe”, said the UN report, which also revealed that the assailants operate in small mobile groups of between six and several dozen individuals, and use various methods to disguise their attacks. In the majority of cases compiled by the UN, attacks were carried out at sunset, when villagers were returning from working in the fields.

In total, 35 attacks against villages were documented, as combatants engaged in systematic looting, destruction of homes, and theft of domestic animals, food and other goods (such as clothing and kitchen utensils).

Meanwhile, Independent Catholic News reports that about 1,500 children have been taken to remote jihadist camps “where they are being brutalised and indoctrinated by Islamist militia”. Based on reports by the Catholic aid agency, Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), there were signs of at least three training camps, one in Medina.

Maria Lozano, ACN vice-director of communications, said: “We have been given access to a variety of materials that show the nature of these camps. The reports show soldiers wielding rifles, watching over the children – aged nine to 15 – in military outfits, carrying out military exercises. The images we have seen are very disturbing.

“The sudden emergence of the jihadist camps is being linked by ACN sources to UN peacekeeping forces, with concerns that the UN forces are complicit with the camps and that they are intentionally failing to take action against them. It is alleged that some members of the Mission of the UN Organisation for the Stabilization of DR Congo are fundamentalist Muslims from Pakistan who in their spare time are setting up Quranic schools and working on mosque construction sites.”

On the night of 16 October, 2014, one attack decimated an entire community, including a pastor and his family. “Overnight, suspected militants slaughtered 19 people in the neighbouring village of Ngade with machetes, before attacking the nearby Kadohu village,” said the church leader, whose identity is being protected. “Pastor Kanyamanda Jean Kambale and his wife Odette were asleep in their beds with two of their children when they were warned by church members to run. But, as the assailants approached their door laughing and acting in a friendly way, Kambale innocently opened the door to his murderers.

“They dragged him from the house and butchered him with machetes while his wife managed to hide their two little sleeping children in the house. But she was then cut to death with machetes. Before dawn broke over Kadohu, the chief of the village and 13 other residents had been slaughtered with machetes. Most of the victims were members of Kambale’s church, a new community composed of about 40 people, mostly Mbuti Pygmies. Today the Pygmies are possibly in the gravest danger as they are on the outskirts of town and far from protection”.

It’s not the first time churches and clerics were targeted by militants. On 19 October, 2012, three Catholic Assumptionist priests, P. Jean-Pierre Ndulani, Edmond Kisughu and Anselm Wasukundi, were kidnapped from their home in the town of Mbau, in Beni. Local journalists reported that they were taken by an armed militia and later handed over to ADF-NALU. According to local newspaper Les Coulisses, and Radio Kivu 1, they were killed by ADF/MDI a year later because they refused to convert to Islam, but there is no proof of this, and their whereabouts remains unknown.

MDI was founded in the early 1990s following a fusion between the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an armed group with a radical Islamist orientation, and the National Army for the Liberation of Uganda (NALU). NALU was a local tribal militia who refused to be governed by the Buganda, the main tribe. They battled for an independent kingdom of Ruwenzori inside Uganda. The two groups shared the common goal of overthrowing the Ugandan government of Yoweri Moseveni, in power since 1986, and (a later goal) replacing it with an Islamic fundamentalist state.

In 1995, after being driven out of Uganda, the group established a base in Beni, a highly volatile region in eastern DR Congo, which has experienced cycles of violence for more than 30 years. Moreover, the Virunga National Park, with its mountainous landscape, offered fertile ground for guerrilla activities. ADF-NALU is believed to have ties with the Somalia-based Al-Shabaab. Its militants come from Uganda, but also Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania, Rwanda, Sudan, Burundi, Central African Republic, and DR Congo.

If the joint military operations carried out by UN troops and the DR Congo Army in April 2014 succeeded in destroying the militants’ main base in the Virunga National Park, the radical Islamist group has conserved its capacity to cause destruction by adopting guerrilla tactics.

MDI constitutes a real security threat for the DR Congo and the entire central African region. It adds to the list of radical groups operating across the continent, with Boko Haram active in Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon and Chad, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and its affiliated groups active across the Sahara region, and the Somalia-based Al-Shabaab in East Africa.