Online Harms

Debate between Andrew Percy and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 7th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), a fellow Yorkshire MP, for securing the debate and for the content of her speech.

I will primarily focus on antisemitism online, particularly in my role as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on antisemitism. Before I do that, I want to raise the issue of financial scams, which many of us have been lobbied on. I had a very sad case of a constituent who was recently affected by such a scam. They are truly shocking and harmful scams that take place online. I hope that as the Government move forward in this space and introduce legislation, they will have scams in mind too.

We all know the history of the rise of antisemitism in recent years, both on the far left and on the far right in this country, and across Europe and the wider world. It is sad that antisemitism has continued to grow and to find space online during this period of coronavirus. We have seen a fall in the number of physical incidents, probably because of the lockdown, but sadly we have seen all too much of a continuation online. Between the start of this year and June the Community Security Trust recorded 344 online incidents. There would have been many more were it not for the narrow reporting parameters. We could easily be up into the millions if we could measure antisemitism under the broadest scope. Those examples are as shocking as what we all know. There are many Members present who are members of the all-party parliamentary group on antisemitism and who have taken a stand on the issue.

During the period in question there has been Zoombombing of Jewish events with vile racist antisemitic commentary. Sadly, there have been covid conspiracy theories growing online. It is disappointing, first, that there is an anti-mask movement—sadly that is across the world; but often that moves closely to antisemitism. A constituent recently contacted me about that, with some barking mad idea about masks and how terrible they are, to which I replied, “Next thing you will be telling me it is all the fault of the Rothschilds,” to which—no word of a lie—I received a response saying “Actually, the Rothschilds knew this was going to happen.” That is how this stuff spreads. It is a simple step from one to the other.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making some crucial points. Does he share my disgust, and is he appalled, that YouTube at the start of this debate is providing links to a notorious antisemitic radio station called Radio Aryan and, indeed, a whole channel dedicated to antisemitic material? I will not read the name out. The content is there right now, as we are having this debate. YouTube has not removed it.

[Andrew Percy]

It is absolutely shocking. It should not take legislation to deal with it; it is obvious that the content should not be there. We need the Government to legislate, as I shall come on to in a moment, but it takes no brain surgeon to figure this stuff out. Sadly, too many platforms do not do enough.

Then of course there was the shocking Wiley incident, when he was tweeting on average every 87 seconds, which is incredible. There were 600 tweets, on a conservative estimate, which were seen online by more than 47 million people, of vile antisemitic abuse. Let us just consider some examples of it. He tweeted:

“If you work for a company owned by 2 Jewish men and you challenge the Jewish community in anyway of course you will get fired.”

Another one was:

“Infact there are 2 sets of people who nobody has really wanted to challenge #Jewish & #KKK but being in business for 20 years you start to undestand why:”

Then—something completely disgusting:

“Jewish people you think you are too important I am sick of you”

and

“Jewish people you make me sick and I will not budge”.

It took days. As I said, it took, at a conservative estimate, 600 tweets before anything was done about it. Instagram videos were posted. When one platform closed it down it ended up elsewhere. That is despite all the terms and conditions in place.

Enforcement is, sadly, all too invisible, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has highlighted, with regard to Radio Aryan. I was pleased that Wiley was stripped of his honour, but he should never have been able to get into the position of being able to spout that bile for so long. The best we have been able to do is strip him of an honour. It is completely and utterly unacceptable.

There is a similar problem with other platforms. I want to talk briefly about BitChute. It is an alternative platform, but we see the same old tropes there. Videos get millions of views there. It is a nastier version of YouTube—let us be honest—with videos in the name of the proscribed group National Action, a channel, for example, with the name “Good Night Jewish Parasite”, livestreaming of terrorist content, racist videos about Black Lives Matter protesters and much more; but it is a UK-based platform with UK directors, and while action is taken against individual videos there is, sadly, not enough recourse. Given the time limits, I shall quickly ask two questions and make two comments on legislation and where we are heading.

The online harms White Paper suggested a number of codes of practice, and that seems to have been rowed away from somewhat in recent weeks and months, so that there will be reliance, instead, on the terms and conditions. I do not think that that is enough. I hope that the Minister will confirm that enforceable codes of action will flow. I hope that also if she has some time she will perhaps meet me, and the Antisemitism Policy Trust and other partners, to discuss the matter in more detail.

Will the Minister consider introducing senior management liability for social media companies? The German model for fines is often talked about, but it has not worked. The maximum fine so far issued in Germany is, I think, two million dollars or pounds, which is nothing for Facebook. It can afford to build that into its programme.

There is plenty more I could have said—I am conscious of the time—but I hope the Minister will commit to meet with us and respond to those two points.

Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Andrew Percy and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 10th January 2019 General Committees

[Andrew Percy]

If the hon. Gentleman, instead of shouting, had allowed me to continue to develop my argument, he would have heard me go on to say that, absolutely, the European Union has a diversity of population, but overall it is overwhelmingly a white club and it provides—

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

No, no—I will not give way—[Interruption.] I am not going to be shouted down and I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, particularly after the slur on Members yesterday who dared to raise legitimate questions in the main Chamber—[Interruption.]

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Mr Robertson. I think that is an entirely inappropriate remark for the hon. Gentleman to make, which I urge him to withdraw, and in addition I do not believe that it has anything whatsoever to do with the order that we are discussing this morning.

Human Rights (Commonwealth)

Debate between Andrew Percy and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gray. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—I want to say “my hon. Friend”—for her speech. It is a pleasure to attend this afternoon’s debate to support and agree with much of what she had to say. Like her, and the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), I was at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference last week and found it a fascinating, if sometimes frustrating, experience. I had not intended to take part or speak as much as I did, which is probably the case for many of us, but some of what we heard at the conference could not go unanswered.

Gatherings of the Commonwealth, such as the CPA conference, are great moments. Bringing parliamentarians across the Commonwealth together is completely appropriate, to remind us of the shared values and history that we enjoy. We found a lot of consensus among Commonwealth parliamentarians on a range of issues. I attended a number of sessions, including one on the empowerment of women, although that went a little bit agley, with a contribution on the legalisation of drugs, which did not seem appropriate to a debate on female empowerment in business, unless there was a niche interest. We also had an interesting session on caring for our elderly population, which was a bit more orderly. The female parliamentarians also had many enjoyable hours in the Commonwealth women’s conference, from which of course we men were barred. That aside, it was an interesting gathering.

In the plenary sessions, bearing in mind the Commonwealth charter and the provisions on democracy, we had some interesting discussions about self-determination and the democratic rights of the citizens of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. There was strong support for the motion that we eventually agreed on Gibraltar and for the motion that we quickly agreed on the Falklands. The British delegation was united in support of the rights of people in the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar to determine their own destiny and future.

We had an interesting debate on human rights in general and on the charter. The hon. Member for Bristol East made a fine speech from the podium—fine and provocative, which I think was what she intended, and it certainly sparked an important debate. She made reference to the charter’s article on human rights:

“We are committed to equality and respect for the protection and promotion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights…We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”

Debate was sparked off by “other grounds”, and turned into a discussion of the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals in different countries.

I do not speak regularly on LGBT issues in this country because, fortunately, we operate a “live and let live” policy. Rights have advanced greatly in the past few years, certainly under the previous Government and hopefully under this Government with regards to equal marriage, so the issue is not one on which I would usually engage, although I am supportive of those rights. We almost take them for granted in this country, people of my generation in particular but, given some of the contributions at the conference after the speech by the hon. Member for Bristol East, I could not help but participate in the debate.

We heard some quite frightening speeches, in particular from Cameroon and, to an extent, from Ugandan representatives. It reminded me that, although we have much in common throughout the Commonwealth, with many shared values, there is a great deal that divides us, and we should not pretend that those divisions do not exist. Furthermore, it is incumbent on all parliamentarians from this country and from other parts of the Commonwealth to make it clear when we disagree. In response to comments from a Cameroonian delegate regarding homosexuality, in which she stated that it went against the laws of nature, there was a sharp intake of breath from our delegation and many others in the room, particularly the Canadians, who also spoke on the issue. I therefore felt the need to speak in that debate.

Appropriately enough, we were in South Africa, a country that knows all too well the history of dividing one group from another to the disadvantage of all. When we attack one individual’s rights, ultimately we have an impact on everyone else’s rights. I felt the need to intervene in that debate, and to point out things with which I am sure everyone in the Chamber would agree. We do not want to preach to those countries, and we have a stain on our own history in terms of what people have thought—not so long ago in this country we thought that a role for women in politics was inappropriate and that people in Africa were incapable of governing themselves. We know about such stains on our history, which I made mention of and about which we are embarrassed.

Similarly, as I said in Johannesburg last week, even today in our own country, which is a modern, liberal-looking democracy, as parliamentarians we come across people who still hold quite frightening views. Our responsibility is to challenge such views. I do not pretend that our country does not have people who think some of those things, but we have a level of protection for rights, which have expanded in recent years, of which we should be proud. I therefore felt that it was important to speak up on the issue and to make it clear that, while we have stains on our own history, we have learned the lessons. It is not about preaching, but about simply standing up for the rights of minorities elsewhere.

If there was one glimmer of hope on the LGBT issue, it came in the contribution of one of the Ugandan parliamentarians. He seemed to be saying, “Well, we know that our views on this issue are not as developed as yours. Maybe, in a couple of decades’ time, this won’t be an issue for us.” That seemed a strange admission, almost as if he was saying, “We know we are wrong, and in 30 years’ time we won’t be wrong.” It was an odd contribution. I spoke to that parliamentarian afterwards, however, and he was at pains to assure me that the particular piece of legislation before the Ugandan Parliament, of which the hon. Member for Rotherham made mention, was unlikely to be introduced in its current form.

That debate divided the Commonwealth—sadly, as older Commonwealth against new Commonwealth—and comments that were supportive of what the hon. Member for Bristol East had said tended to come from our delegation. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) made an excellent contribution, and there were contributions from Canada and New Zealand. Samantha Sacramento, the Minister for Equality from Gibraltar, made a fine contribution as well, but for me the best speech came from the podium, from the Deputy Speaker of the South African Parliament. Deputy Speaker Mfeketo made a brilliant speech in which she spoke passionately about how the experience of South Africa was relevant to LGBT rights; in that country, they know about the impact of one community being divided off and having special laws passed against it.

Such comments were more powerful coming from another African politician, rather than, sad to say, from a white parliamentarian. Many contributions, such as that of a parliamentarian from Mauritius, were in essence, “Well, you gave us these views. You came here in colonial times with those views. You came with your Bible and told us that this was wrong, and yet now you are preaching to us.” All the contributions from Canada, New Zealand and the UK were of limited impact compared with the fine speech of Deputy Speaker Mfeketo.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. Does he share my concern about some groups, in particular from the United States, which have been stirring up homophobic hatred in countries such as Uganda? There are some quite sinister activities going on, with a number of reports over the past few months. That is exactly the opposite of what we ought to be seeing.

[Andrew Percy]

I am concerned about that, and some people in our own country like to stir up such views. I hope that Ugandans are as quick to dismiss the views of such outside influences, wherever they come from, as they would be to dismiss the views of their former colonial masters.

As I said, the contribution from the South African Deputy Speaker was very fine, and I associate myself with calls from the hon. Member for Bristol East at the conference and the hon. Member for Rotherham today that we must do more to ensure that the charter does exactly what it says on the tin—as the old Ronseal advert used to say. Furthermore, when the charter mentions discrimination on “other grounds”, our country and our Government must challenge such discrimination, whatever and wherever it may be.

I want to comment briefly on Sri Lanka. I heard the hon. Member for Rotherham call for a boycott. I have engaged in issues arising from the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I have always been against boycotts as a way of trying to solve such issues. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s conference next year will be in Cameroon. Given some of its views on the rights of LGBT people and women, it could be said that we should not attend it, but boycotts are not necessarily the solution. What Prime Minister Harper has done in Ottawa was bold, but I am not sure that a boycott would be in our interest. I sometimes think it is better to attend such meetings and to make the case on the ground in the country concerned. We must be careful about boycotts, although I entirely concur with the hon. Lady’s comments on human rights in Sri Lanka. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bristol East referred to that issue at the conference, and she challenged the Sri Lankan delegation to demonstrate a commitment to human rights at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

I concur with much of what the hon. Member for Rotherham said. The conference last week was fascinating. One does not often come back feeling like a human rights advocate because one does not often feel the need for that in this country, but I came back from South Africa better educated and a little frightened at some of the views I heard. The Government must ensure that they challenge those despicable views.