Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Debate between Lord Beith and Fiona Mactaggart

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I do not have a faith, but I represent the constituency of Slough which, according to a recent survey, is the most religiously observant place in the country. I respect faith because when I am campaigning for human rights and justice, I am often standing beside people who are there because they are motivated by their religious belief. Because I am motivated by human rights, I am glad that this debate uses the language of international human rights instruments that connects freedom of religion with freedom of conscience.

In the United Kingdom, we believe that we are a human rights society, and we talk a lot about the responsibilities that human rights bring with them. In my view, one of those responsibilities is ensuring that other people enjoy the same rights that we do. That is at the heart of this debate. In her excellent introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) pointed out that one of the most difficult things about human rights is the point at which people’s human rights conflict. That is a challenge for all of us, and our debate about human rights in Britain has been insufficiently aware of the need to think through issues of conflicts of rights. Unless we do that, we will fail to guarantee everyone’s human rights effectively.

We think of the UK as a country of religious freedoms, but I have been concerned about the way in which people who seek to exercise their freedom of religion have sometimes suggested that that gives them the right to deny other people’s rights—most obviously when people seeking to run a bed and breakfast have felt that their Christian faith gives them the right to refuse to let a room to people who are homosexual. Many people who think they support the right to freedom of religion too often want that right to be a privilege for their religion, rather than someone else’s. That happens around the world. In some countries, it is manifested in the dress laws. In Saudi Arabia, people like me have to cover up. In France, my Sikh constituents are not expected to wear their turbans in public places and my Muslim constituents would not be allowed to wear the niqab or the hijab. I find both those approaches equally unacceptable.

We have heard in this debate that the issue is much more serious than matters of dress. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about the Ahmadi massacre. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) talked about the evil organ harvesting of Falun Gong. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about the complete failure of freedom of conscience and belief in North Korea, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) talked about the issues facing Christians and Muslims in Africa. All these forms of discrimination are ones that I have taken up on behalf of constituents.

At the moment, I am particularly concerned by the elections in India. Narendra Modi is likely to be elected, but in 2002 he did nothing to prevent a pogrom of Muslims in Gujarat. But in 1984 his opposition, the Congress party, was equally responsible for the Delhi massacre of Sikhs. That is why I make the point about the importance of not privileging one religion, and the need to recognise the human right to freedom of conscience and belief. It is also why I was glad to join the Ahmadi Muslims in Slough last week at their 10th peace conference. I was equally glad to parade with the Sikhs in Slough during their Vaisakhi celebrations at the weekend. Those are all expressions of the beliefs and joys of faith. As British politicians, we do not have the right to tell other countries how they are run, but we have an absolute responsibility to ensure that countries that claim to be democratic uphold basic standards of international human rights. I believe we have a duty to point out where countries fail to do that.

Our country does not always get it right. I was very pleased to support Hardeep Singh, someone living very close to my constituency, in his libel case against a so-called Sikh saint. In the judgment on the case, the judge quoted the decision of Munby:

“Religion … is not the business of government or of the secular courts. So the starting point of the law is an essentially agnostic view of religious beliefs and a tolerant indulgence to religious and cultural diversity.”

I believe we should engender that

“tolerant indulgence to religious and cultural diversity”

all around the world.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I hope the hon. Lady is not arguing that it is impossible to have complete religious freedom in states in which a particular religion has a kind of legal status that it has built up historically. That was the case in, for example, Lutheran Scandinavian countries, which are exemplars of practising freedom of religion and supporting it throughout the world.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The right hon. Gentleman is in many ways right. We have a state religion in this country, too. Our Queen is the defender of the faith in the Church of England. We have a model that shows it is possible. Pakistan would claim to be a Muslim country, but it should be able to tolerate those who call themselves Muslims but whom mainstream Muslims do not accept are Muslims, and it should be able to tolerate Christians who want the right to practise their belief. It seems to me that this debate is fundamentally a debate about human rights. It is fundamentally a debate about our responsibility to protect the rights of others, including those with whom we fundamentally disagree. That is the message we should be giving to such states to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

We have failed to educate people in Britain about the nature of a human right. We have failed to tell people that the responsibilities that come with human rights are the responsibilities to protect the rights of others. We have allowed our red top newspapers to lie about there being a human right to pornography in prison or a human right to Kentucky Fried Chicken for a burglar stuck on a roof. All those are lies. The truth is that after the second world war, the world came together and devised instruments, such as the United Nations declaration, the European convention on human rights and the asylum convention, which all relate to our duty to protect the human rights of other people. One of the fundamental rights is the right to respect for one’s beliefs, even when they are wrong.

That is the message that should come from this debate. We should take the responsibility ourselves, after this debate, to challenge the ignorance about all human rights that I am afraid too many Members have winked at for too long. Unless we challenge that, we are making space for the kind of evil denial of the human right to freedom of thought and religion that we are debating today.