International Human Rights Day

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I can confirm for the noble Earl that we raise human rights concerns across the globe. We have very constructive relations with India; in that respect, we raise our candid concerns about human rights in India. I assure him that the issue of human rights, particularly freedom of religion, is enshrined in the Indian constitution, and we continue to engage very constructively on this agenda with India.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister’s commitment in this field and that of his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Does he agree that there is great value in giving young people an appreciation of the importance of human rights? To that end, would he consider relevant educational initiatives, such as including a human rights component in curriculums and encouraging schools to invite speakers with a known human rights commitment to speak to them—particularly those with personal experience of human rights violations?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I join him in paying tribute to my predecessor in this role, who played a vital role on a whole range of human rights priorities. The noble Lord has some very practical suggestions. I assure him that I will take them back and write to my opposite number in the Department for Education to see how we could best take that forward.

Nigeria: Religious Violence

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we continue to look at the issue of the freedom of religion or belief with partners in the UN. Indeed, I am currently working towards a possible resolution, or certainly a debate, during our presidency, on freedom of religion or belief—in which I am sure Nigeria will feature.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, it is clearly beyond the capacity, or perhaps the will, of the Government of Nigeria to end the conflict and ethnic cleansing. Have they sought any external advice or assistance from the Commonwealth or the British Government, and are we prepared to act if our advice is sought?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we are working with the Government of Nigeria, and with NGOs and faith NGOs on the ground, such as Christian Aid and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, to support communities--particularly those that have been displaced--and we will continue to do so.

Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 29th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the chorus of approval and will pose a number of questions. Do the Government accept that EU membership was not a factor in the delay since the 2018 Act? Of course, the Baltics already have legislation in this field. Because of the delay, surely many malefactors will have disposed of their assets in this country. Are the Government satisfied that financial institutions in the overseas territories are sufficiently robust to counter such malefactors?

Will the Government use the vast pool of NGO experience in this field, given the FCO’s limited resources? I think particularly of the Natalia Estemirova Documentation Centre in Oslo. To what extent will the Government exchange information and, where appropriate, seek to align our lists with friendly countries? I note what Secretary Pompeo said to the Henry Jackson Society about the Uighurs a few days ago.

Finally, are universities and schools covered by the new regulations? Of course, they might accept dirty money for their own purposes.

That said, I congratulate the all-party coalition of Andrew Mitchell, Margaret Hodge and Dominic Raab when he was a Back-Bencher. He has been wholly consistent when in government and persuaded a reluctant Government to accept these Magnitsky amendments to the 2018 Act, all aided by the indefatigable Bill Browder. As someone who gave evidence to the European Parliament and produced a report for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on this subject, I warmly commend the Government’s initiative—at last.

Organ Trafficking: Sanctions

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, my Sunday afternoons would not be the same without emails from the noble Lord. I assure him that I have underlined my commitment and the commitment of Her Majesty’s Government to the important issues raised in relation to the Falun Gong. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we will respond once we have fully considered the details of the report. The noble Lord rightly raises those details and the details of other reports, one of which was issued today on human rights issues and the plight, particularly, of Uighurs in China. We raise this in multilateral fora and the Uighurs issue was mentioned in my contribution at the Human Rights Council last Tuesday.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have had powers to make Magnitsky-style regulations—visa bans and asset freezes—since the passage of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and Sanctions and the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Why the delay? It cannot be EU membership, as other EU members such as Lithuania and Latvia have Magnitsky-style regulations.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, there is no sense of a lack of priority. I assure the noble Lord that we are very committed to this sanctions regime. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it a personal priority. The noble Lord points to issues and the use of other restrictions. We have had those levers at our disposal. Only last week, when answering a Question on another country—the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—I reassured noble Lords that we have used levers at our disposal, including visa restrictions.

Israel and Palestine: United States’ Proposals for Peace

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, a leading German social democrat declared to his countrymen at the time of the Treaty of Versailles that the hand that signed the treaty would be signing its own death warrant. Such would surely be the fate of any Palestinian leader who dared to sign what Trump called the “deal of the century” or “peace vision”. This bird will not fly.

The initiative was not an unexpected bolt from the blue but the culmination of a series of one-sided initiatives, all taken without any consultation with the Palestinians, brought down like tablets of stone from the mountain. All such initiatives were highly partisan and were greeted enthusiastically by the Israeli Government. These included the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem; the recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of Israel over Jerusalem and the Golan Heights; the withdrawal of US aid for Palestinian refugee camps; the closure of the PLO office in Washington; and, of course, the abandonment of US support for the Iran nuclear accord.

Cumulatively, these completely changed the parameters of US policy and distanced the US from Europe, which has become a mere bystander in the region. They were part of Trump’s obsession to reverse all of Obama’s policies. Can we now seriously expect any Palestinian leader to sit at the negotiating table over this deal? They receive only 70% of the West Bank, and land swops of arid land in the Negev. Yitzhak Rabin, a great leader, stressed that it takes two to tango, and was assassinated for his efforts at peace.

We in the UK boast that we understand the Middle East and its history. Therefore, I was surprised at the warm welcome and support given by Foreign Secretary Raab. I suspect, as a former diplomat, that this was not the position of the regional experts in the FCO but rather the wish of the PM not to have too many fights with the US when he is seeking a post-Brexit trade deal. The highest that can be said in favour of this proposal is that, by shattering all the old assumptions, the conflict might then be reconfigured in preparation for a new start on a new track.

My own background is clear. I joined Labour Friends of Israel in 1966 and had the privilege of chairing the Anglo-Israel Association for four years. I, like my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, wish to be a candid friend. I admire enormously the vibrancy of Israel’s democracy, the rule of law, the scientific achievements that rival Silicon Valley. I well understand the force of their arguments about the lack of a credible negotiating partner who can deliver, the Palestinians’ peddling of illusions about the possibility of a right of return, their fomenting of hatred against Israel among the younger generation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, by textbooks and other means, the existential threat to Israel and their concentration on security which follows.

However, Israel has never been in such a dominant position militarily in the region nor perhaps internationally, given their warm relations with Russia and the USA and with several Arab states, particularly in the Gulf. As Israel faces the long-term problems of demography and water supply, now may be the time for some calibrated concessions. Is there no hope of progress? Must we await some cataclysmic event to clear minds? Surely there are some signs of hope in the change of view by Arab states. Who can forget, in 1967, the Khartoum agreement of the “three noes”, and the way in which several Arab states now respond fairly warmly to Israel—Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states—a sea change of considerable importance?

Trump appears to believe that money—some might say bribes—can be decisive. Of course, money can help, but more fundamental are questions of identity. Solomon would surely have avoided a big bang and sought to enlarge islands of co-operation, as my noble friend Lord Stone and his colleagues tried to do. Such might, indeed, happen when a new US Administration takes a more balanced approach, with the emergence of a more realistic generation of Palestinians discarding the unrealistic rhetoric of their fathers, or when this dynamic Israeli society of 9 million people is prepared to look long and seek partnerships, not a humiliating domination of the Palestinians.

Middle East: Security Update

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am not here to answer on behalf of the US Administration. What I can do is talk of the responses of Her Majesty’s Government to the situation on the ground. I agree with the sentiments of my noble friend, who obviously has deep insight into Iran, about the actions we have seen—including the killing of General Soleimani. It is for that reason that we have stressed, and continue to stress, the importance of de-escalating and reducing tensions in this area. He makes the point—I, he and all noble Lords have witnessed the scenes from Iran—that the hardliners in Iran have clearly been given a stronger voice. However, as I said in the Statement and as my noble friend acknowledged, Soleimani was no friend of the West.

We must now deal with the situation in front of us. Therefore, it is important that the UK uses its influence with our partners in Europe through the E3, as I have already said. We are working with the United States and updating regularly; as I have said, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is travelling to the US and we will seek to keep the House advised of future developments. However, I am sure my noble friend agrees with me that it is now important to call for not just calm but de-escalation from all sides.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, no one here mourns the death of such a man of blood. It is understandable that the Foreign Secretary called for restraint and de-escalation, but does the Minister agree that, in situations such as this, it is often helpful to try to imagine what would happen if the reverse were true? For example, if a US Vice-President or Secretary of State were assassinated by an Iranian or an Iranian proxy in the Middle East, would we call for restraint?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of restraint. At this time and with the sensitive nature of what is in front of us, it would certainly be inappropriate for me to speculate on situations. I stress again the importance of de-escalation and of keeping diplomatic channels open at all levels.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, one thing which we can all agree upon, I think, is that not for decades has there been such an acute period of political and constitutional uncertainty as that which we are experiencing at present. We do not know whether there will be a general election, whether there will be a vote of no confidence or whether we will leave the EU. Our constitutional conventions are threatened, our courts are increasingly involved, our political parties are divided, Parliament is paralysed, and public confidence in and respect for Parliament is diminishing by the day.

Inevitably, as a result of all this, political debate is course and bitter. I would even go so far as to say that our political culture, the accepted norms of our national debate and decision-making processes are seriously threatened.

The symptoms are complex, but the cause of all our present difficulties is not complex at all. It is incredibly simple. In 2016, both Houses of Parliament voted, virtually without dissent, that the issue of whether we should remain in the European Union was something that should be decided not by the House of Commons but by the British people in a referendum. We, the parliamentarians, also decided the precise rules under which the referendum would be conducted and the precise question that would be on the ballot paper.

We all know what happened next. Leave won, and ever since, a significant number of parliamentarians, though by no means all remainers—I certainly do not put everyone in the same category—have used every possible procedure to obstruct, delay or even try to reverse the result of a referendum which, I repeat, almost all of us voted for.

There is no point whatsoever in holding referendums if those responsible for implementing them—the parliamentarians—will only do so if they agree with the result. That also applies to any suggested second referendum. Why on earth would I, who voted leave, agree to a second referendum, when I know from bitter experience that even if I win, it may not make any difference?

We have all heard the excuses for not implementing the referendum result. We are told it was not clear what leave meant. Well, it is crystal clear to everyone outside “Confused of Westminster”. If you leave any organisation, at the very minimum you do not have to obey the rules of the organisation and you certainly do not have to pay the subscription.

In any case, two can play at the “What does it mean?” game. What does remain mean? Does remain mean continuing to pay our current subscription? Does remain mean joining a European army? Does it mean ever closer union, with more laws to obey over which we have no control? Does it mean losing our rebate? Does it mean ever greater dominance and control from those members of the EU who are members of the eurozone? The truth is that the future is uncertain, whether we remain or leave. It is always uncertain. Life is uncertain.

The tactics of the unreconcilable remainers have at least evolved over time. First, we were told that the referendum did not really mean anything, that it was purely advisory and that it would be fine for the Government to ignore it. Then it was said that the real choice was not between remain and leave, but between a hard Brexit—or even the hardest of hard Brexits—and a soft Brexit. However, when Mrs May offered the softest of soft Brexits, they said: “No, thank you very much”, by a large majority. Their next tactic was saying: “What we want is a People’s Vote”. In the finest Orwellian tradition, the purpose of the people’s vote would be to reverse the 2016 vote of the people, but there was no agreement as to what question should be put to the vote, or even how many questions there should be, except, of course, that remain must be on the ballot paper.

The latest tactic is the so-called Benn Act, in which a majority of the Commons were united in the view that our departure from the EU should be delayed for a further three months. The problem is, of course, that that was all they were united on. Ask them what the three months’ delay is actually for and they are all over the place.

The most bizarre suggestion, from some, is that they want what they call a Government of national unity. It would of course be a Government of national unity with a passionate remainer as Prime Minister and a Cabinet full of remainers, so the losers in the 2016 referendum would achieve national unity for us all by excluding the leavers and reversing the referendum result. The mind boggles at the logistics of it all. Who would be the Prime Minister? Who would be the leader of the Opposition? Would Her Majesty be required to make another Queen’s Speech? What about the Chamber in which we sit? Presumably, for a Government of national unity we would all have to sit on the same side.

There are yet more severe remainers who want to go even further. They want to revoke Article 50 by a simple vote in Parliament, so that the votes of 17.4 million people in a referendum could be overturned by 326 votes in the House of Commons. It may be democracy, Jim, but not as we know it. These people who want to revoke Article 50 seem to believe that we can all pretend that the last three years, including the referendum, never really happened.

I can just imagine the letter that a revoking Prime Minister would have to send to the EU. “Dear Monsieur Barnier”, it would say, “First, let me apologise unreservedly for all the inconvenience to which we have put you during the past three years. It was all the result of a dreadful mistake that we made when we asked the British public whether we should remain in or leave the European Union. I can assure you that, in the future, there will be no more nonsense about consulting the people”.

This Parliament is enveloped in a political and constitutional quagmire. The cause, as I have said, is very simple: the failure of Parliament to honour the referendum. All the parliamentary and constitutional shenanigans are a direct result of this. Unpalatable as it may be to many in this House there is only one solution to this problem, and that is to leave the European Union. I voted leave but, in a spirit of national unity, I would like to end my remarks with the words of a remainer. This is Sir Anthony Meyer, writing in this week’s Sunday Times. He said:

“I voted to remain but believe that it is a moral and political imperative to honour the referendum result”.


Well, so do I, and I know that millions of our fellow citizens, leavers and remainers, think exactly the same.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

If I may correct my noble friend on one thing, Sir Anthony Meyer was my former boss in the Foreign Office and a former Conservative MP for Eton and Slough. My noble friend means Sir Christopher Meyer.

[Lord Grocott]

Yes, I did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I fully agree with the well-deserved tribute that the noble Lord has paid to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I recall from when he has talked about our naval power that, some 25 years or so ago, we were debating 40 frigates and destroyers within our fleet. We now have about 20 and yet, somehow, we still talk of enhancing our “global role”—in which, surely, the Royal Navy should be playing a leading part. How can we play such an enhanced role if our fleet has been reduced to such an extent? The question surely answers itself.

Some 200 years ago, Shelley was looking at the state of England, observing the turmoil, writing his poem in anger and, indeed, sadness. Some of that same anger and sadness must surely be seen by so many of our friends as they look at the United Kingdom today. We all take pride in our constitution. Like many noble Lords, I have addressed conferences about the virtues of our unwritten constitution, its flexibility and the pragmatism of the British people. But, alas, over the past three years, we have failed the stress test of our constitution. Many shortcomings have appeared and many questions, which were under the surface, now appear almost paramount.

The current state of the UK has renewed the debate about constitutional reform by means of a constitutional convention or otherwise including the possibility of a written constitution, and it has boosted our discussion about further devolution or, indeed, independence. Noble Lords may have noticed the poll in last week’s Sunday Times, which said that 50% of Scottish people would now favour independence. I hear a “Hear, hear!” from my noble friend. As he well knows, we in Wales often have a sort of “Me too” or “Follow the leader” position about Scotland. I know where he would stand on that. It is rather surprising that the unionist party, by its own actions, has created greater discussion about, and support for, Scottish independence and, possibly, according to recent polls, greater support for the independence of Wales—which, in my judgment, if it comes at all, is something far off—as well as more talk about a united Ireland. We must remember, although we would not know this from listening to the contributions from our Northern Irish colleagues, that Northern Ireland—Ulster—voted to remain.

I begin with two preliminary reflections. First, we have as a country been here before. I have just read Claire Tomalin’s wonderful biography of Samuel Pepys, and my first reflection is that our situation reminds me of the period of the restoration of the monarchy from 1658 to 1660. So many of the most ardent Parliamentarians at the time suddenly discovered that they were Royalists after all. Could we not apply that to some Cabinet members, in particular, who are now saying stridently and ardently that they are now strong Brexiteers? It is perhaps a sad commentary on human nature that, rather like those Parliamentarians at the end of the Cromwellite rule, so many Conservative politicians are now discovering that they were indeed Brexiteers.

My second reflection is this. In the 1630s, there were two concepts about the source of authority of government—two concepts that collided in the Civil War. On the one hand, there was the divine right of kings; on the other, there was the sovereignty of Parliament. Now, it was not God but the people who spoke three years ago. The mantra today is, “The people have spoken: long live the people”. Are we seriously suggesting that one snapshot three years ago at one point in time has determined the position of this country, across the board, on foreign and domestic affairs, for as far ahead as is planned? It was well said, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that, if there were a poll today, the people would have changed their minds. Are people not allowed to change their minds? Some people give the parallel of a general election, but a general election lasts at most five years and people can then change their minds. We are stuck with one snapshot, taken three years ago, which would change if there was a new referendum.

It is interesting that those who in the past called for the supremacy of Parliament against the foreign power of the European Union have now changed their tune and are rather downplaying the sovereignty of Parliament. The Prime Minister uses the terms “surrender” and “the surrender Act”—a mantra repeated again and again by his followers—yet one surrenders to an enemy. One can hardly properly debate and negotiate with the European Union if one truly thinks of them as the enemy.

Turning to the Queen’s Speech itself, and to foreign affairs and trade, it was claimed that we will be free of these shackles and enter the world stage boldly as global Britain. Looking at our resources, it is in part a pipe dream. It is certain that our clout internationally will be diminished. Our status will be diminished, as will respect for us overseas. We will be in a waiting room, waiting for decisions to come to us from the European Union. As for links with President Trump’s America, we saw how the Prime Minister kept silent on the Kim Darroch affair, for example, and did not rally to support a member of the Foreign Office at that time. The latest example is of course the dumping of the Kurds. I may be wrong, but I understand that we were not consulted in any way. Giving good warning of a policy change of this sort must surely be a test of a true ally. The only winners in this are President Putin, who gets a boost in terms of Russia’s long-standing policy in the Middle East, and, alas, ISIS, as the camps will not be guarded by the Kurds. That is the inevitable consequence of President Trump’s unpredictable, capricious decision, which has so dismayed his allies.

As for trade, our comparative weight in and out of the EU must be a major factor. Our market in the UK is 60 million, while the EU is 450 million. Whereas Mr Fox talked about glittering trade deals, he has achieved none. His policy collided with reality. Of course, sentiment plays no role in trade deals. India, for example, will demand concessions on visas and, as the excellent former US ambassador, Ray Seitz, reminded us, the UK is important to the US largely as a bridge to the European Union. Congress has a key role in terms of protectionism by America and pork-barrel politics. We would seek a deal in financial services, but the regulators and lobbies would stand in our way. That “America first” policy was shown in the US-Canada-Mexico agreement and, with US regulatory standards in food, animal welfare and food safety will prove a major difficulty. Our major market is clearly our neighbours in the European Union and, as an outsider, our weight there will be considerably reduced.

I make only this comparison between our Prime Minister and the President. Both obviously have problems with women, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is that both are prepared to use their authority for their own personal ends, as with President Trump in Ukraine seeking to dish the dirt on a potential rival, and the Prime Minister favouring a girlfriend when allocating public money. This is well attested, however much it is denied.

It is crystal clear that we in the UK are living in most uncertain and troubled times—perhaps the most troubled times since just before the First World War and The Strange Death of Liberal England. Our constitution is fundamentally under scrutiny; our very existence as a United Kingdom is being challenged at a time when our global weight will be reduced. Navigating this uncertainty requires great statesmanship. I ask a question which again answers itself: does anyone seriously expect that statesmanship to come from our Prime Minister?

Hong Kong: Emergency Powers

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the Government have shown that diplomacy is the way forward. Ultimately, in any public statement that we make, we consistently make the point that political dialogue is the solution. We are very mindful of the history of Hong Kong, but, speaking as the Minister responsible for human rights, when we see human rights being usurped in those countries with which we have a strategic relationship—and yes, that includes China—we stand up for them, and make those views known.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, to avoid the ultimate disaster of intervention by the People’s Liberation Army, and to give all sides a ladder down which to climb without losing face, is there, in the judgment of the Government, any prospect of outside conciliation or conciliation by respected individuals?

Hong Kong

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, let me reassure the noble Lord that we seek to uphold “one country, two systems” and will call on the Chinese authorities and the authorities in Hong Kong to do the same. As I said in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, this is an international agreement whose principles should be abided by. I will certainly take the issue of the Early Day Motion back and look at the detail. I assure noble Lords that the important thing is that we continue to raise through all international and bilateral channels the importance of upholding the rights of, and obligations to, the citizens of Hong Kong.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, much of the prosperity of Hong Kong depends on confidence. Is there not clear evidence now that much of the business community has been relocated or is considering relocating to Singapore, which would be much against the interests of the Government of China? Are we not making it clear to China that to be in breach of the joint agreement is to be in breach of its interests in this matter?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I believe that, thus far, the Chinese authorities have shown restraint, which we welcome. Clearly, as I said in my Answer to the original Question, law and order in Hong Kong is of deep concern to us. The noble Lord raises the important issue of future investment in Hong Kong. As we have seen, the eyes of the media and the world are on the situation in Hong Kong; that will not be lost on investors. He makes an important point about political and economic stability in a given territory. I am sure that any business making a decision in respect of Hong Kong will look at that very carefully.

FCO Support for Persecuted Christians

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, in Syria, Christians are afraid to enter UNHCR camps because of violence against them, and there is also violence in the camps in Germany, yet the Government accept only refugees from those camps, unlike Belgium and Australia. The result is that in the first quarter of 2018, no Christians from Syria were accepted in this country and the Government have steadfastly refused to give any figures since because of the likely embarrassment. Why is that? Is it post-imperial guilt or are the Government discriminating against Christians from Syria?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On a lighter note, this is the second day running that I have been asked about post-imperial guilt. The irony is not lost on me. On standing up for persecuted Christian minorities around the world, I am proud of the record of this Government and previous Governments, who have done the right thing. The noble Lord raises an important point about granting asylum and refuge to people from persecuted communities, including Christians, and I believe that the Government have focused on that. We have sought to work with the UNHCR to ensure that applications are progressed effectively and efficiently. There has been a suggestion that Christians should be prioritised over others. I believe that, whether you are Christian or of any other faith, or of no faith whatever, common humanity dictates that we stand up for the rights of others, including Christians, as well as our own rights.