Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN Convention on Genocide

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Tony Lloyd

Thursday 7th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on Genocide.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you as Chair of the proceedings, Ms McDonagh. It is a long time since I have engaged in this art form.

I will begin by expressing my regret that the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) cannot be with us today; unfortunately, he is not well. He was the co-sponsor, along with me, of at least part of this debate, and I count him as a good ally on matters concerning human rights. The hon. Member for Henley leads the UK delegation to the Assembly of the Council of Europe, which gives him prominence in the human rights debate.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I join the hon. Member for Rochdale in expressing our dismay at my hon. Friend the Member for Henley not being here to speak on a subject on which, as the hon. Gentleman generously said, he is extremely expert. I am sure that the whole House would want to wish him a speedy recovery.

[Tony Lloyd]

I will pass the Minister’s words on to the hon. Member; I think we would all agree on that.

On a happier note, we meet today to celebrate the fact that it is now some 75 years since two important universal documents appeared. The universal declaration of human rights was brought into being on 10 December 1948, and, of course, there was the equivalent declaration on genocide. I shall not trespass on to the genocide declaration, because my identical twin, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), will speak on that.

[Tony Lloyd]

Some identical twins differ more than others; that is all I will say. Nevertheless, he will speak on that declaration with great knowledge.

The only thing that I will say about the genocide declaration is that it is sometimes very narrowly interpreted as being concerned solely with the partial extermination—the killing—of populations when, in fact, it is much broader than that. It is very important both in the way that the public perceive it and in creating a legal base for many other activities. I will begin by saying what a tremendous thing it was that the United Nations was able to bring that together. It was very much influenced by Eleanor Roosevelt, the spouse of President Roosevelt. It was particularly important because the world had just lived through the most astonishing atrocities: the dehumanisation of the individual, with six million Jews killed in the death camps along with untold numbers of gypsies, gay people and Slavs. Even though those were Hitler’s evil crimes, it is, perhaps, worth quoting Stalin, who said that one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. That chilling comment almost summarises what took place during the second world war and how those in the generation that brought into being the universal declaration were able instead to say, “No, we are not prepared to accept that; each human being is valid in their own right”.

The preamble to the universal declaration of human rights says:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.

That is the rights of “all members”, without consideration of gender or any other of what we would now regard as protected characteristics. In that context, this was a major change in attitude to the concentration on the individual.

As a slightly barbed comment, I will just say that we even heard in the main Chamber recently a Minister talking about the situation in Gaza and Palestine and saying that the killing of Palestinians was a “by-product”. That may have been an infelicitous use of words, but it is the kind of verbal usage that we must be very careful to guard against, because the life of every individual must be treated as being valid, which is exactly what the universal declaration of human rights reminds us of.

Of course, in this era we can ask, “Has the universal declaration been a success or a failure?” Its level of aspiration is extraordinary: prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex or religion; the right to life and liberty; the prohibition of slavery; prohibition of torture; prohibition of arbitrary arrest, detention and exile; the right to a fair trial; freedom of religion; freedom of expression; freedom of assembly and association; the right to work, which interestingly includes the right to equal pay for equal work and the right to form or join a trade union; and the right to education.

Referring back to equal pay for equal work, it took another two and a half decades before our country even legislated on that issue, when Barbara Castle brought in the equal pay legislation. However, the universal declaration of human rights was developed back in the 1940s, so this profound declaration established the principle of equal pay for equal work.

If we look across the nations of the world, it is not that difficult to be dismayed in this era by the breaching of the commitments that many countries have made to the universal declaration of human rights. I will run through some of those countries; I know that other hon. Members will have other countries that they prefer to talk about.

Let us take the situation in Syria. A terrible war has taken place there, and now 2.4 million children have no access to education and 55% of Syrians are food-insecure. Both of those things are in contravention of articles of the declaration.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, we know about the unlawful killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Ankara. That still screams out as an abuse by the Saudi authorities. And of course Raif Badawi is a Saudi blogger and activist who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for creating an online forum for public debate, and he now faces a 10-year travel ban after his release.

In Iran, the debate about the right of a woman to choose whether or not to wear the hijab, or the scarf was put to the test by the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022. She died in police custody after being severely beaten and tortured. That led to literally millions of people protesting to challenge the Iranian regime’s actions. The result was that 19,000 people were arrested and 551 people were killed.

Oddly, of course, while the Iranians want to dictate that women should wear the veil or scarf in certain circumstances, in France the hijab is banned under certain circumstances, in contravention of these rights that I am discussing.

Russia is now a major abuser of rights. In the Bucha massacre—let us say genocide—in Ukraine, 450 people were murdered, and mass rape and torture took place. In addition, 16,000 Ukrainian children have been kidnapped; only 300 of them have been returned from Russia or, possibly, Belarus. There is also the case of Arshak Makichyan, a climate activist who is charged with terrorism; he has also been stripped of his Russian citizenship and left stateless.

In Serbia, we know that the attacks in northern Kosovo, including the so-called Banjska attack in October this year, were planned by armed Serbian militants, but they were almost certainly organised by Milan Radoičić, who has strong links to the Serbian president. In Serbia, of course, they continue to deny the genocide that took place in a previous era.

On a different continent, in the Philippines unlawful killings have been carried out under the war on drugs, which was launched by former President Duterte. It is believed that maybe over 6,000 people were killed during that period. I met a Filipino priest this week who cannot return to the Philippines because he would be charged by an army officer who wanted to indict him for the criticisms he made of that army officer.

I could go on, with many more cases in Colombia. We know that 182 killings of human rights and environmental defenders took place there in the previous calendar year. There is legislation to protect those defenders, but it is not implemented. Impunity is a major problem.

I will not go through every country in the world, but I want to touch on one or two others. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, war has been endemic for many years: mineral wealth is stolen by the DRC’s neighbours, but routine torture of its citizens also takes place. I met an asylum seeker this week who was granted asylum and now lives in this country as a refugee. In Zimbabwe, arbitrary arrest takes place. In Mali, the Malian and allied security forces have been implicated in hundreds of unlawful killings. There is also no doubt that in India, systematic discrimination against and stigmatisation of religious and other minorities, particularly Muslims, is endemic. In January, photographs of 100 Muslim women, including journalists and activists, were displayed on an app that said they were for sale, in order to humiliate and intimidate them; in October, police in Gujarat publicly flogged Muslim men accused of disrupting a Hindu festival; and in Indian-occupied Kashmir, the actions of the Indian authorities are outrageous. Those very often slip through the net of things to which we are able to pay attention.

I cannot fail to mention the situation at the moment in the middle east with Israel and Gaza. The attacks on Jewish women and the level of brutality meted out by Hamas scream out against everything we believe in. We need to condemn Hamas and the activists who perpetrated those attacks. Equally, however, I have to condemn the actions of the Israeli forces when we see the denial of food and water and of power to hospitals, which, again, are in breach of Israel’s convention obligations. Across the world, there is a pattern of abuse that is both tragic and, perhaps more legalistically, in gross contempt of those countries’ obligations.

The challenges come closer to those who were the driving forces for the universal declaration. The United States is not free of criticism. We have seen people arrested without charge and without process in Guantanamo Bay, for example. Again, the world ought to pay attention to that. In the United States, the right to health is rationed by the power of the dollar, so the poor do not have access to their declaration rights to health. The death penalty—both the so-called legal death penalty and the death penalty sometimes at the hands of the police and other forces—is also something that shames America.

In case people think I am ignoring our own country, we have not ratified the protection for migrant women under the Istanbul convention, for example. We really need to begin to move on that. We have made laws that allow us to strip individuals of their citizenship, leaving them stateless. That cannot be right and is contrary to convention rights. The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 will almost certainly come before the European Court of Human Rights—it needs to do so—because it offers de facto an amnesty from prosecution for the most serious crimes of murder and unlawful killing. Last night, we heard the Home Secretary’s view that he could declare by statute Rwanda to be a safe country. I remind Members that the United States State Department described Rwanda as a country whose human rights breaches include unlawful killing and the use of cruel and discriminatory policies, including torture. By any standards that does not make Rwanda, even by statute, a safe country.

[Mr Mitchell]

One must be careful when talking about Rwanda, a country I know extremely well. This is a country that, in the last 30 years, suffered a genocide where 1 million people were killed in 90 days. It is an extraordinary success story of a country that has lifted itself up from the very depths to be one of the safest and most stable countries in Africa today. Do not forget either that, dealing with the aftermath of a genocide, the Gacaca court system was incredibly successful at processing people who had committed murder in their hundreds of thousands and reintegrating them back into society. That is an extraordinary and pretty much unprecedented achievement.

[Tony Lloyd]

I have also visited Rwanda and met the same President the Minister will have spoken to. I recognise where Rwanda has come from, but I also recognise that in any journey we expect progress. The US Department of State’s critique is real and we ought to take it into consideration, in particular when we seek, by statute, to declare Rwanda to be a “safe” country. We can argue about the history, but we need to look at the present as well. There are still some unsavoury things—unsavoury is a kind word—that take place in Rwanda and we should recognise that.

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not want to prolong the debate at this point on Rwanda, but in the opinion of the British Government, and more widely, it is indeed a safe country. The hon. Gentleman may or may not know this, but if we look at the statistics Kigali is a safer city than London.

[Tony Lloyd]

Well, I am a Mancunian and we have different views on these things. I shall be leaving London sometime this evening, and not to go to Kigali.

What we must acknowledge is that a debate is taking place in the Minister’s party about the relevance of international law. I hope it will conclude that, as a nation, we are better protected when we are a part of collective security and collective law. To describe the European Court of Human Rights as a foreign court is unhelpful. It is not a foreign court; it is a court that we helped to establish. I hope the fact that there is a debate will ensure that we recommit to the values of the universal declaration of human rights.

On the positive side—I have gone through some of the negatives—the universal declaration has been the foundation of international human rights law. Nine binding treaties stem from it and the majority of United Nations members have signed up to four or more of them, so international human rights law exists and is now actionable, sometimes through national legislation, as we have in our own country, and sometimes through other bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights. The international covenant on civil and political rights guarantees the right to life and equality before the law. The international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights provides for the right to freedom of expression and the right to work, to social security and to education—all very important freedoms and rights. We also have the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and those who have been involved know how important that is.

Around the world, we have seen the expansion of concern—particularly in this country, but in others as well it has to be said—of non-governmental organisations. I will not name them all, but we had a number of them in Parliament this week, ranging from Amnesty International to country-specific NGOs. We recognise the growth of human rights and environmental defenders around the world, and—I mentioned the hon. Member for Henley—the important role of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe system itself in underpinning human rights in this country.

There is no doubt that the universal declaration has been a success. Here in our own Parliament, many structures and bodies are devoted to human rights, but there are challenges, which I put to the Minister in the hope that he will respond, including that defenders of human rights and the environment are under enormous pressure all around the world. They are killed, or they are charged with artificial crimes. We know about that pressure. We, as a country, should defend the defenders of human rights and the environment.

I was a Minister in the Foreign Office in my time, so I know how difficult it is to engage in human rights conversations. I had the delight of talking to President Milošević in his day, when he was about to murder Kosovans—I do not remember him being very responsive to my entreaties on human rights, so I recognise how difficult it can be. Nevertheless, there is a moral and practical obligation on our Government to ensure that the case for human rights is embedded in everything that our Foreign Office does, including striking trade deals. It must show concern about environmental protections and workers’ rights. We must recognise when striking security deals, including those involving the transfer of arms or technologies such as surveillance equipment, that such hardware can be used for the wrong purposes.

We know with near certainty that Yemenis have been carpet-bombed using weapons made in this country. We must take that on board.

I also ask the Minister to follow the model of the Bribery Act 2010 and seriously consider the establishment of mandatory supply chain due diligence to protect the human rights of those working in supply chains, as well as protect the environment that supply chains can put under pressure.

Finally, I think the Minister will definitely be on board with my final suggestion, because it is implicit in his own White Paper. We need to get upstream on these things to ensure that we are building capacity around human rights defenders and environmental defenders, on issues such as impunity and on issues such as environmental protections more generally. In the end, we must build capacity to ensure that crisis does not automatically lead to violence. Those would be enormous gains. I pay tribute to the Minister for being on the more endearing end of the Government—I apologise to the Minister; he will never live that down. I nevertheless look forward to a positive response to our demands, which ought to strike favour as we celebrate the establishment of the universal declaration of human rights.

Israel and Hamas: Humanitarian Pause

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Tony Lloyd

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of looking to the medium and the long term, and of doing all that is necessary to bring together people of good will to make progress on the two-state solution. We want to see all hostages released as swiftly as possible, and we also want to see greater volumes of food, fuel, medicine and life-saving supplies getting into Gaza, principally through Rafah but also through any other plausible means.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Is it the Government’s contention that further hostilities—the destruction of the south of Gaza in the way we have seen the north destroyed, with tens of thousands more killed—will lead easily to a permanent ceasefire, or will it simply embolden the militants?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the very worrying position that exists in the south of Gaza at the moment. He will have seen that the United Nations and others are considering islands of deconfliction, particularly around Khan Yunis, including safe zones in order to dispense aid. But, like me, he will be very aware of the dangers experienced in other safe zones in the past, and the risks for civilians who are involved in them.