Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, but I will stand.

According to the United Nations, a quarter of households in the occupied territories have insecure access to food, and an estimated 1 million are in need of health and nutrition assistance. The UN estimates that, overall, 2 million people in the occupied territories will need some form of humanitarian help in 2017. It summarises the situation as

“a systematic denial of Palestinian rights”,

and

“a man-made humanitarian crisis that has gone on for far too long”.

The Government have confirmed that in the past year, 1,010 Palestinian homes and other buildings have been destroyed, dismantled or confiscated in area C and east Jerusalem—the highest figure in east Jerusalem since 2000—leaving 1,476 people, including 696 children, displaced and vulnerable. I am sure we all agree that those figures are very disturbing, and speak to the pain and trauma of many families. As well as dismantling Palestinian homes, the Israeli authorities demolished 274 “humanitarian structures”: tents, shelters, and buildings housing the homeless. The UN said that that situation was unprecedented; it is unprecedented, but it is also intolerable and inhumane.

This disregard for human rights does not just apply in Gaza and the west bank. Recently, I asked a series of parliamentary questions about the Bedouin communities in Israel, and in particular the village of Umm al-Hiran near Hura. It appears that a forced demolition is taking place at this village—something condemned as

“a blatant and ugly episode of discrimination mirroring Israel’s unlawful settlements.”

As we have heard, the Israeli Parliament passed a law that legalised 4,000 Israeli settlement buildings, in direct contravention both of international law and previous decisions of the Israeli courts. The Minister knows that the new US President has expressed strong support for Israel, even going so far as to suggest that UN resolution 2334—a clear and straightforward reaffirmation of international principles—would not have been passed if it had been put forward after his inauguration.

Does the Minister think that Israel’s recent acceleration of its illegal settlement policies is in any way linked to the change of US President? Is there now geopolitical cover for settlement expansion, provided by the US? If so, what can the Minister do about it?

To date, the Government’s response has been to express concern. They have “expressed concern” for a long time about the continuing settlement policy. In answer to my questions about the forced demolition of Bedouin homes, they were

“concerned by recent reports of violence”,

and just this week they expressed their official “concern” about the land regularisation Bill that passed through the Israeli Parliament.

Changes in US Immigration Policy

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for securing the debate. We have heard some excellent speeches.

I shall keep my own speech short, I promise, but I want to begin with the timely words of the rather exceptional Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust. She said:

“We’ve spent the past week remembering the Holocaust, reminding ourselves where hatred leads, that words matter, that we cannot stand by. As we see injustice and witness prejudice and discrimination, we should not only feel confident to, but a duty to speak out.”

As Ms Pollock would tell us, the holocaust started with words of hatred and built from there. President Trump has a history of Islamophobic rhetoric. In 2010, he implied that Muslims were a threat to the security of his country and had a collective responsibility for the 2001 World Trade Centre attack. In 2012, he said that the world had a “Muslim problem.” In March last year, he said:

“I think Islam hates us.”

He has spoken approvingly of blanket surveillance of all Muslims and the idea of a registry of Muslims in his country. There are chilling similarities here with the Judenkartei: first words, and now actions.

In recent days, we have seen the attempt to put into place the ban on Muslim movement into the US. This is part of an initial package of measures designed to restrict the freedoms of migrants, and—let us face it—to demonise them. There is an escalating pattern of deeply unjust and very worrying behaviour, and it is clear from this debate that many hon. Members share my concern about where it might lead.

Trump’s behaviour does not only affect US residents; it is a matter of justice, security, and basic dignity, for people here at home. Like many of my colleagues in this House, I am sure, I have received lots of messages from constituents worried that their ability to travel to the US will now be curtailed. If only it was only that, because these words and actions have had a much greater effect: they fuel fear, and provide perceived permission to acts of hatred. Global media coverage extends their reach; they simply cannot be contained.

We must stand up, with a clarity of purpose and in solidarity, in condemnation of these actions and the ideas that underlie them. They are already harming innocent people around the world, whether directly or indirectly by encouraging hatred, but I worry that they could do so more. They reflect, in their beginnings, the injustices that so many of us recently remembered and recommitted to prevent.

Kashmir

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

According to Reuters, at least 80 civilians were killed by Indian forces between July and December last year, many of whom were participants in protests. The protests began on 8 July after the death of Burhan Wani, the popular leader of the largest Kashmiri independence group. The authorities imposed a curfew, and disabled internet access and mobile phone networks, but this did not prevent an escalation. Both tear gas and live ammunition were used to disperse large crowds and groups of stone-throwers.

There have been expansive contributions in the Chamber about the indiscriminate use of pellet guns to disperse protesters. Pellet guns have the predictable effect of blinding those they hit. At close range, the hundreds of projectiles they fire can carry enough kinetic energy to penetrate skin and organs. They can therefore be fatal if fired at much of the body. A very large number of pellet injuries have been to the face, with 570 people seeking treatment for eye injuries at the main hospital in Srinagar on 8 November. According to hospital’s figures, more eye surgeries were performed in the three days between 10 July and 12 July than throughout the whole of the previous three years. That cannot be right.

Many children are among those who have lost their sight as a result of such tactics. In the case of 13-year-old Mir Arafat, the pellets penetrated deeply enough to become embedded in his blood vessels, neck, oral cavity, lungs and heart. In the case of Junaid Akhnoon, also 13, the pellet injuries to his head and chest were severe enough to kill him. At a minimum, this is evidence that insufficient care is being taken to ensure that civilians are not seriously injured by security forces’ tactics. It is also suggestive of something far more serious: that the security forces in the region are intentionally using tactics that blind civilians to discourage protests against Indian rule. According to a spokesperson for the state Government, the use of pellet guns is “a necessary evil”. But it is not. It will never be necessary for security forces to blind children to ensure the restoration of order.

Both India and Pakistan have been responsible for deaths from army shelling and military raids across the line of control in recent months, in a cycle of retribution that regularly claims civilian lives in addition to those of soldiers. There are accusations that Pakistan has used the popular unrest of ordinary Kashmiris as cover for renewed attempts by proxy groups to enter and further destabilise the border regions under Indian control. I am sure that the Minister, like me, is deeply troubled by these recent reports, but equally disturbing is what goes on behind the scenes.

Amnesty International cites the example of Khurram Parvez, a prominent Kashmiri human rights defender who was arrested repeatedly and held without proper process for a total of 75 days last year. Eventually, his detention was ruled to be arbitrary and illegal by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, and his release was finally secured following international pressure on 30 November. I am pleased the Minister is in his place and I beg him to hear that international pressure does have an effect. The case of Khurram Parvez is part of a pattern that human rights organisations have been detailing for years, most comprehensively in Amnesty International’s 2015 publication, “Denied”. Amnesty’s view is that the dire situation the report describes remains largely unchanged. Due process is still frequently denied both to those accused of militant activity or support, and to those victims—along with their families and communities —of state security abuses. They never see any progress towards justice and peace.

As we continue to work on these issues, we must ensure that humanitarian concerns remain at the forefront of our minds. It is clear that this conflict has gone on far too long. The individual stories we have heard today are really nothing new. Much of the conflict goes on away from the eyes of the western world. I hope this debate will begin to change things. I further hope that the Government will renew their efforts: to create opportunities for productive dialogue between India and Pakistan; to discourage escalation and exert pressure against policies that allow or encourage human rights abuses; and to facilitate, wherever they can, a permanent settlement that gives Kashmiris a genuine voice. To quote Mandela:

“It is so easy to break down and destroy. The heroes are those who make peace and build.”

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

This afternoon I want to focus on why it is important for Croydon North that Britain remains a member of the European Union. Croydon North is part of an outer London borough, but it has many of the features of an inner-city area: an extremely diverse population, high levels of youth unemployment—particularly, sadly, in the black community—and too much poor quality housing, particularly in the private rented sector, but it also has a very enterprising and ambitious population.

Croydon is at a crossroads. The Labour council elected two years ago has announced a massive £5 billion regeneration project for the town centre that will affect the whole borough. It will reshape the retail centre around a new Westfield-Hammerson’s shopping mall, including thousands of new homes, thousands of new jobs, new education and leisure facilities, and a growing new tech hub. Being a 15-minute train journey from Gatwick in one direction and central London in the other, Croydon is ideally placed to take advantage of being part of the world’s biggest trading bloc.

The future looks bright for Croydon, but a big question-mark hangs over it all, and that is the threat of Brexit in next week’s referendum. The investors Croydon hopes to attract will think again if Croydon is outside the European Union. They do not want trade barriers blocking their access to Europe and they will think twice about investing in an economy that is going backwards into recession.

If we tried to stay in the single market without EU membership, we would be subject to EU rules and freedom of movement, like Norway and Switzerland are, but without the veto we currently have: the same circumstances, but no voice.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

That is the one argument that people on my street just are not aware of. They think we can have a trade agreement with the EU and still lower the immigration from EU countries. It simply is not true, because we would have to sign up to the same freedom of movement. We need to get that message out.

[Mr Reed]

That is absolutely true. I am sure my hon. Friend is doing as much as she can in her constituency, and I am going to be doing as much as I can in mine.

We would become weaker, not more powerful, if we left the EU. We would lose control over our destiny, not gain it. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned that a vote to leave the EU could trigger a recession, and nine out of 10 economists agree with him that Brexit would damage the economy. A vote to leave next Thursday would be the first time a country had voluntarily chosen to throw its economy into recession, and that would mean more job losses, lower tax revenues, a growing deficit, more cuts in public services like health and education, rising interest rates to prop up the pound and, because of that, higher mortgages. And it is not the wealthy élite that will suffer; it is ordinary people in places like Croydon North.

Immigration has helped London’s economy to grow, and it has benefited Croydon immensely. Where there are pressures because of immigration, like housing or the NHS, those are not the fault of immigrants, who put in more than they take out; they are the fault of a Tory Government who are underfunding our health service and selling off social housing. We cannot allow immigrants to be scapegoated for the failures of this Conservative Government.

Too many people in Croydon work long hours for low pay in insecure jobs. Their lives would become harder still without the employment protection that comes from our membership of the EU. Pro-Brexit Tories have already made it clear that they cannot wait to leave the EU so that they can cut workers’ rights in half. That is exactly what one of them has said they want to do. They want to remove rights for part-time workers and parents, increase working hours, and reduce paid leave. It was the European social chapter that triggered the Tory revolt on Europe, not because they want to protect British workers, but because they want to exploit British workers.