Ceasefire in Gaza

Debate between Kirsten Oswald and Ian Paisley

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On 13 November, I had the honour of meeting Adi and Dvir Efrat, a mother and daughter kidnapped by Hamas on 7 October. Thankfully, they were rescued by brave IDF soldiers. For the last number of weeks, I have stood in Parliament Square holding posters containing the names of people such as Tsachi Idan, Ran Gvili, Inbar Haiman and others who were kidnapped—not just Israelis, but people from around the world who remain kidnapped today by Hamas and tortured today by Hamas and its instigator the Muslim Brotherhood.

All of this is a consequence; the awful war that we are witnessing in Gaza is a consequence. It is a consequence of the unjustifiable attack on Israelis and Jewish people on 7 October—an attack that the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) quite rightly identified as not even being mentioned in the motion that we are being asked to vote on today. We are not being asked to vote for the comments of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), no matter how sincere or mealy-mouthed they may have been; we are being asked to vote for a motion that does not contain any word about the rape of the women, the murder of the children or the unjustifiable attack. It is as if it did not happen; it is as if it were invisible. Other people in the 20th century denied things that happened to Israel and Jewish people. That is essentially what we are seeing tonight: the denial of an attack on Israel. [Interruption.] Yes, it is utterly vile that it did not appear in the motion.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We have all heard much today about what various motions and amendments contain and do not contain. Let us focus on the situation and what we all agree on: as the hon. Gentleman well knows, all of us in this House condemn the despicable behaviour of Hamas. We all call for the release of the hostages—their poor families must be in absolutely terrible situations. We all want people to stop being killed, women and children particularly, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that the remarks he just made, in which he conflated things that should never be conflated, do not show this House in the best way. We are all entitled to our views, but we need to treat this particular subject seriously and with the dignity and respect it deserves. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that he did not do that.

[Ian Paisley]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady’s motion, which she is asking me and other Members to vote on tonight, does not contain a single word about 7 October. It is a denial, and it is invisible because it is as if it did not happen. That is what we are being asked to vote on tonight by the SNP.

The tragedy of the thousands of Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza is the moral responsibility of Hamas, just as the Israeli casualties are the moral responsibility and the actual responsibility of Hamas, who have deliberately and cynically initiated a high-intensity conflict in one of the most densely populated areas on earth specifically to maximise civilian deaths and to turn global opinion against Israel. Today, Israel faces attacks on eight fronts: Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the west bank, Yemen and Iran, plus the one the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute wants us to open up as another front, which is the parliamentary front against Israel. He wants us to oppose Israel in this place. The SNP fails to recognise that this House can be pro-peace and pro-ceasefire, but also recognise Israel’s right to exist, and it is a shame that the SNP could not do that tonight.

Elected Women Representatives: Online Abuse

Debate between Kirsten Oswald and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. I was not planning to speak in this debate. It has been my preference not to speak about the online abuse that I face, because frankly I have never really wanted to give these people credence by even acknowledging it. That is my choice, which suits me. Others, as we have heard very eloquently, have chosen differently, and I say good for them. We should all deal with this nonsense in whatever way we feel is best.

I decided to speak today because I had agreed to speak in an event later this week organised by Women 5050. I felt that were I to stand up and tell them that it was all fantastic being a public representative and not mention the cesspit that is online commentary, I would be a bit dishonest and a bit of hypocrite. Just to be clear: I love my job. Let us also be clear that we know, as politicians, that we have chosen to be in public life. That brings with it an acceptance of public criticism, but that should not be an acceptance of threats or abuse.

Although it is the biggest privilege of my life to represent people in my local area and to be part of a party and movement that I believe in so strongly, and I would obviously encourage others to take that step too, it is not all sweetness and light. Maybe calling it out, at least sometimes, makes the road for the next woman coming along a little smoother.

I will dwell a little on Women 5050, whose website makes stark reading. It says:

“Today, despite making up 52% of the population, in Scotland women only make up 42% of public board members, 25% of public board chairs, 35% of MSPs”.

That is not good enough, and I am delighted by the steps that the Scottish National party has taken and is taking, whether that be on our gender-balanced Cabinet; Nicola Sturgeon, who works so hard to push on equality; the central focus on women in our Holyrood manifesto; or our gender balance in candidate selection.

Of course, the Westminster Parliament has so much further to go to achieve equality, but whether it is in Holyrood, Westminster or council chambers, or in political discussion anywhere, statistics show us that this is a real issue across the world. We have a problem with online abuse, harassment and worse. If we do not tackle it, we are going to lose out. We need to take steps now and to make our Parliaments look much more like our countries.

When Women 5050 approached me, it mentioned that my colleague Fatima Joji had been involved in its work. That settled it for me in terms of participating in its events and in the debate today. As well as being an excellent candidate in the Holyrood election—she would make an outstanding MSP—as a young black women in politics, Fatima has been subjected to even more nastiness, bile and abuse than other women in the public eye, but she persists and we are all the better for her participation and that of all the other women we have heard about today.

We have heard clearly today that our female black and minority ethnic representatives in particular experience such a lot of disgraceful abuse—it is not on. Politics is not for the fainthearted, nor should it be for robots devoid of human feelings. It is not just in Parliaments that women are disproportionately impacted by this online bile. Our council chambers and political movements are full of women who are subjected to nastiness, name-calling, lies and threats. It needs to stop. I discussed this yesterday with a woman friend who is a local councillor and the sad thing is that we spoke about it as if it was completely normal. Of course, it is normal in our experience, but it really should not be.

One of the things that can be so difficult is the nameless, faceless nature of a lot of this. Apart from the fact that abusers are clearly complete cowards hiding behind their wee avatars, it is obviously much more difficult to deal with when we have no idea who it is who feels so emboldened by their anonymity to post things that they would certainly never have the balls to say in real life to their wife or with their mum listening in or to their friendly local police officer. As we have heard, it sometimes spills off social media to other corners of the internet, or off the internet completely, which can be very concerning.

I have been actively involved in politics since 2014 and there is no doubt that there is more and worse abuse now than there was then. Rather than the terrible murder of Jo Cox being the catalyst it should have been for a reset, which was surely the only appropriate response to such an awful event, we see now that it has actually been amplified with a good dose of fake news stirred in, because plain abuse on its own is not good enough.

We sometimes know the people online who feed on hate or feel brave enough to send stuff our way would struggle with if it came back in the same direction. Sometimes, there is not a law against it, because it skirts pretty close, but it is unedifying none the less. Facebook is pretty rubbish, frankly, at dealing with it. It is not really interested in that any more than it is in dealing with the fake news. Twitter is only marginally better.

It was telling at the recent International Women’s Day debate, which was a very sombre affair in the shadow of Sarah Everard’s murder, there was a palpable scunner—I do not know how better to express that—at the online crap that every single woman in the Chamber that day, no matter our variety of political opinions, knew all about. That day it felt like we were collectively worn down.

We need to do something. I say again, I am fortunate to do the job I do. I know others say they might not have pursued their career again if they had known. I understand that, but I am delighted to be here today. I am delighted to speak, because, although it is against my better judgement in some ways, we have to stand up and say that we will not allow this to prevent women from getting into politics and making a difference. I am also delighted with the work the SNP Scottish Government are doing to try to improve fairness and political representation. It makes a difference and is very powerful.

We support the ambitions of the online harms Bill, especially when it comes to the issues that affect vulnerable people and children. We urge the UK Government to take it further and be stronger. Do not let big tech shirk away from its responsibilities. The points about the ways in which we can clean up the internet—giving people the opportunity to verify their identity and making it easier to block unverified users—are well made, although they do not come without their own challenges. Whatever the solution, not only for elected representatives but for other vulnerable people in danger of harm online, the real danger is that if we do not stand up and take steps, it will only get significantly worse.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I do not know whether Hansard reporters know the word “scunner”, but I will try to inform them from across the sheugh what it was you actually said. Thank you for your contribution. I call the Opposition spokesperson, Christian Matheson.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Kirsten Oswald and Ian Paisley

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a privilege to follow such a thoughtful and considered speech.

I rise to speak to amendments 31 and 32, in my name and the names of my colleagues. They require that the definition of terms used in clause 45 be determined only after an impact assessment of the UK Government’s obligations under international law has been carried out. I am also happy to speak in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends from the Alliance and the SDLP, and I look forward to further debate in Committee.

The SNP rejected the Bill on Second Reading because we will never support legislation that breaks international law—I am not actually sure why I have to say that. Our amendments seek to ensure that this Parliament understands the impact on its international obligations of any future decisions that it takes on the matters covered by the Bill. The UK Government have presented a Bill that not only threatens a breach of international law—a position that now seems to satisfy many Conservative Members—but was in itself a monumental act of bad faith that speaks volumes about their view of themselves and the world around them.

Last October, speaking about his withdrawal deal, the Prime Minister said:

“if we do this deal—if we pass this deal and the legislation that enables it—we can turn the page and allow this Parliament and this country to begin to heal and unite.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 826.]

The range of the amendments to this section of the Bill alone make it clear—not that we needed the clarity—that healing and unity can hardly be described as the highlights of his leadership.

In November 2019, the Prime Minister said:

“Northern Ireland has got a great deal. You keep free movement, you keep access to the single market”.

The Minister spoke about the Conservative manifesto, but it and the Conservative campaign boasted of the Prime Minister’s oven-ready deal. The Prime Minister was effusive in his support of the deal, calling it “very good”, “excellent”, “fantastic” and “wonderful”, but here we are, and he has changed his tune: far from his deal being oven-ready, it is now only fit for the cowp.

[Ian Paisley]

Is the hon. Lady telling us that she and her party believed the Prime Minister then?

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The short answer is no. Regrettably, I do not believe the Prime Minister, on this or other matters.

The Prime Minister said at that point:

“We have to protect the U.K. from that disaster”:

a disaster—and that is his word, not mine—that was negotiated by him and the same adviser as he has now. The Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland last month and talked of close co-operation between central and devolved Governments, but in the least surprising news of the day, certainly to viewers in Scotland, he did not engage with anyone outside Westminster in the development of his Bill. He excluded all of the devolved Administrations from the process of developing a so-called single market through the United Kingdom—plus ça change. Despite the clear relationship between this Bill and the peace process, as well as not engaging with the Northern Irish Executive, the Prime Minister failed to engage with the Irish Government. Despite the clear importance of doing so, he just breenged on regardless. We know why there was no engagement. It is because this shabby Bill—his shabby Bill—had to be put together out of sight of people that the Prime Minister could not control, people with respect for the rule of law and for accountability.

The SNP amendments would ensure that this Parliament would receive an assessment of the impact of any future action on these matters on the UK Government’s obligations under international law—a proper assessment, not the usual triumph of blustering bombast over good judgment by the Prime Minister. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better from the Conservative party, and our amendments recognise that. How can businesses and communities plan with any confidence when their future depends on the internal battles of a party that shows such scant regard for the rule of law?