International Parental Child Abduction

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing this important debate. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue of such importance to many families across the country and beyond.

Since being elected to this House, I have been approached by constituents whose situations have made it impossible for me to look away. I have met parents who have written to me asking for support so that our legal system will protect them and their children. Some parents have had their children moved by the other parent; others have fled violence. That includes two of my Hazel Grove constituents whom I will not name, because they are going through active legal cases. One of those parents fled Australia, and the other Poland, with their children because of domestic abuse and coercive control from their partners. In one case, the abuse was proven in court and it was so substantial that the other parent’s parents—the grandparents of the children—intervened. They felt that the children should be removed from that country for the safety of the children and this parent. Yet these families have found themselves caught in a legal framework that has not accounted for what they were living through and fleeing.

The 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction was built on a sound principle: that a child who had been wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence should be returned promptly. In the vast majority of cases, that is absolutely the right outcome, and the convention has served many thousands of families well over the decades. But the convention was drafted in 1980, and in the intervening 46 years our understanding of domestic abuse and many circumstances that had not been considered in the initial drafting of the legislation has changed enormously.

I am very grateful for the work of the Hague Mothers, who have helped me to understand some of the issues around these cases. They are campaigning to end injustices caused by the 1980 Hague convention on international child abduction, particularly for mothers fleeing domestic abuse. I am also very grateful to constituents who have been to see me—both the “abductor” and the other parent, whose children have been abducted. The convention was originally aimed primarily at abducting fathers and was designed to ensure the quick and safe return of the child. However, there has now been a shift, and about 75% of the parents who are brought before the courts are mothers, with at least 75% of cases involving allegations of domestic abuse. No two families are the same, and no two cases can be identical, but it cannot be beyond the wit of humanity to find a way through with the interests of the children at its heart.

The convention provides three defences against returning a child, one of which is that doing so would expose the child to “a grave risk” of

“physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

On paper, that sounds like an adequate safeguard. In practice, it has not always proven sufficient. If the abuse has been targeted not at the children, but at the other parent, that is where the legal wrangling can come.

It has long been argued—the evidence bears this out—that one of the convention’s most significant shortcomings is that it failed to anticipate that some so-called abductors could be domestic abuse victims fleeing their abusers. A parent—often but not always the mother—who escapes to this country to protect themselves and their children from violence should not find themselves faced with a legal mechanism that treats them as a wrongdoer. Yet that is precisely the situation too many find themselves in.

The challenges do not end there. When a child is taken to a non-convention country, which has not signed up to the Hague framework, the remedies available are even more limited. In those cases, it may be necessary to pursue legal proceedings in the country to which the child has been taken. For any parent, that prospect is daunting.

Under section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, it is a criminal offence for a connected person to take a child out of the UK without the appropriate consent, but there is no equivalent offence when someone takes a child abroad with consent and refuses to return them. That was identified by the Law Commission in 2014 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead mentioned, it has taken until the Crime and Policing Bill to begin to address it. I welcome the legislation before Parliament to close the loophole, but the delay is worth noting because it has caused real harm to real families.

I also want to raise the situation in Scotland, because the law there operates differently and creates significant disparities in the support available. Due to differences in criminal law, many parents whose children are wrongfully removed from Scotland cannot access the same assistance from the police as those in England and Wales. Police Scotland’s powers to prevent abduction are more limited, and some individual cases demonstrate with painful clarity the human cost of that inconsistency.

I will turn briefly to the family court, because any discussion of international child abduction must acknowledge the domestic legal backdrop against which such cases are heard. A report published last year by the Public Accounts Committee made it plain that family court services were not operating as they should. Regional disparities are wide, waiting times are excessive, and too many children endure prolonged uncertainty when what they need is resolution.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for meaningful reform. We are heartened by the results of the child-focused courts pilot, which saw significantly faster resolution of cases, with the backlog in pilot areas more than halved. The child-centric approach of the courts focused on the best interests of the child, rather than on adversarial process. That is exactly what the family court should embody. We welcome the decision to expand those courts across England and Wales. We will continue to hold the Government to account to ensure that roll-out is effective and that the benefits of the pilot are reproduced nationally.

International abduction cases do not remain neatly within domestic borders; they require international co-operation, diplomatic engagement and, where the Hague convention does not apply, a willingness to pursue legal routes in foreign jurisdictions. The Government should ensure that resources, legal aid and consular support are in place to help families navigate those processes. Too many parents are left to do so without adequate assistance.

The Liberal Democrats are therefore calling for the Crime and Policing Bill’s provisions to close the “consent to retain” loophole to be passed into law without delay. We want a serious review of the disparities between Scotland and the rest of the UK, so that all children receive the same standard of protection. We want to see the expansion of child-focused courts delivered with the rigour and resources needed to realise their potential. We want to see the Government ensure that parents facing international abduction—in particular those fleeing domestic abuse—have access to proper legal support and are not left to navigate complex cross-border legal systems alone.

The law exists to protect children, and when a child is taken from a parent, or when a parent is forced to flee violence with a child in tow, our legal framework should be capable of reaching the right outcome. That means being honest about the limits of international conventions, updating domestic law where it has fallen behind, and ensuring that the family courts are fit for purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

I can offer my hon. Friend that reassurance, and I pay tribute to Rotarians who have worked for the eradication of polio over so many decades. We will continue to support global polio eradication directly until December 2026 and then support our polio eradication fund through £248 million of fully flexible core funding to the World Health Organisation between 2025 and 2028. We remain utterly committed to eradicating polio around the world.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Last month, the Rycroft review confirmed that the UK faces persistent and strategic interference from hostile states and warned that our defences against information warfare are “worryingly weak”. With important elections across the country in two weeks’ time, including in my Stockport council area, what steps are the Government taking, working with our allies, to prevent disinformation from overseas aimed at those participating in UK elections?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Lady raises a crucial issue, and I work closely with the Security Minister and others on these matters. Our electoral system is highly resilient and to date we have not seen evidence of successful Russian interference in UK democratic processes. However, we know that the Kremlin is seeking to sow discord in the west and in the UK and to undermine our institutions. We are working on a series of measures to ensure that it cannot achieve that foothold in our society or our democracy.

Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The whole House shares my horror and disgust at the politically motivated imprisonment, conviction and sentencing of Jimmy Lai. Last week, following his trip to Beijing, the Prime Minister suggested that he could change outcomes for Jimmy Lai and Hong Kongers by speaking softly with President Xi. It is clear now that the Prime Minister’s trip to Beijing failed spectacularly to secure Mr Lai’s release. Have the Government summoned the Chinese ambassador to make clear this House’s shared outrage? Jimmy Lai’s experience is the most visible example of Beijing’s efforts to supress any and all criticism of the Chinese Communist party, but it is far from the only example. Pro-democracy Hong Kong activists living in the UK continue to face intimidation, repression and threats from Beijing. Can the Minister provide any guarantees to those Hong Kongers that they will not face further persecution or intimidation at the hands of the CCP?

[Seema Malhotra]

We continue to raise Jimmy Lai’s case with the Chinese Government, publicly and privately. In December, when the verdict of the trial was announced, senior officials in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office summoned the Chinese ambassador to condemn the development in the strongest terms. There is a public readout of the representations made during that meeting. It continues to be the case that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate, harass or harm individuals in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. We have taken action to do more to support law enforcement and training in this country to ensure that that is the case.

Venezuela

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We continue to support the UN charter, which is the foundation of our peace and security. We will continue to support it and its principles in all our international debates.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s clarity on the UK’s approach to Greenland, which is that it is up to Greenlanders and Danes to determine its future, and no one else. Could she be equally clear on whether use of any US bases in the UK will be permitted in any potential military action towards Greenland?

[Yvette Cooper]

We do not want to see any military action in Greenland, and it should not arise, because this is a fellow NATO country. We are NATO members and we should work on our security together.

UNESCO: 80th Anniversary

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, and to be here celebrating the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the fantastic work it does.

We Liberal Democrats are proud internationalists; we believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward looking, and building strong international partnerships with organisations such as UNESCO is a big part of that. We are proud of the UK’s central role in founding UNESCO, and remain steadfast in supporting its mission to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science and culture. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) reminded us of that history.

The Liberal Democrats believe that education is the best investment we can make in our children’s potential and our planet’s future. Education opens the mind, fosters understanding and tolerance, and empowers our children and our communities to be the best they can be. In that vein, the Liberal Democrats also want to restore the UK’s reputation as an international development superpower by returning official development assistance spending to 0.7% of national income and re-establishing an independent Department for international development. We understand the need to step up defence spending, but feel that cutting ODA is short-sighted. We believe in the role of education as a force for good, and if we were in charge, we would commit to spending 15% of ODA on education in the world’s most vulnerable areas, especially focusing on girls and young women.

I have been lucky enough to see for myself the impact of such spending, both as a former trustee of a small charity focusing on education in Latin America and as the former chief executive of a charity set up in the areas where my firm at the time was actively investing. I remember fondly a visit to Senanga in Zambia with CAMFED—the Campaign for Female Education—to see a project we were supporting that was providing life skills and business skills to girls and young women. I remember clearly a session in which girls and young women told me of the transformative impact that their education was having.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK’s rich and vibrant cultural heritage is a national treasure. In this country at least, it is through UNESCO’s world heritage sites list that the organisation is best known, although the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire rightly talked of biosphere reserves and global geoparks. Although there are many outstanding examples across our nation—to date, there are 35 UNESCO sites in the UK and overseas territories, from neolithic Orkney to the wonderful city of Bath, via Durham’s castle and cathedral, which I spent three years getting to know during my time there at university—I will shamelessly take this opportunity to plug a cause close to my heart by talking about a site in my Hazel Grove constituency that I believe should be added to the list.

I strongly believe that our canals and waterways are a large part of our fantastic cultural and industrial heritage. That is why I launched the campaign for Marple locks, at the junction of the Peak forest and Macclesfield canals, to be designated as a world heritage site. Marple’s canal heritage makes it one of a kind, unique in England, and one of the best examples of industrial waterways in the UK. It is our own local slice of Great British history, and I believe we should be doing everything we can to protect it and preserve it for future generations.

I am a proud and long-standing trustee of the Stockport Canal Boat Trust for disabled people and their carers; I refer all colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For me, and for the residents of my Hazel Grove constituency, the canals and waterways are assets to be cherished, not liabilities to be maintained. I believe that granting Marple locks world heritage status will go a long way in showing our appreciation and support for this beautiful site.

Beyond their cultural and historical significance, the waterways are also crucial for nature, wellbeing and combatting climate change. They provide a vital habitat for wildlife and serve as a natural green corridor, connecting diverse ecosystems that are bursting with biodiversity. Canals also play a hugely important role in water management, reducing flood risk and increasing climate resilience. Problems with reservoirs are problems for all of us.

It is the job of us all, across Government Departments and more widely, to protect our heritage and cultural landscapes. It cannot be right that we celebrate the Lake district on the one hand—it is described as a place of “exceptional beauty” on its page on the UNESCO website—and on the other hand allow water companies to pump sewage into those lakes. We should very much learn the right lessons from Liverpool’s experience, where the council allowed development that was described by UNESCO as

“detrimental to the site’s authenticity and integrity”,

leading to the

“irreversible loss of attributes conveying the outstanding universal value”,

and therefore the loss of its world heritage site status. We need to take the protection and celebration of our heritage seriously. I will close with a quote from the UNESCO world heritage convention:

“Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration.”

I am sure we can all agree with that.

Ukraine

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree. We expect Putin and Russia to pay for the damage that they are doing through the unprovoked aggression of their invasion of Ukraine. We will continue to support Ukraine and encourage everybody else to do so, but ultimately we need Russia to pay for the damage that they have done.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I welcome many of the measures that the Foreign Secretary has outlined today. Like her, I have visited Ukraine and seen the impact of the attacks from Putin and his flunkies and, like her, I have seen the resilience of the Ukrainian people. I believe, as we all do in the Chamber, that Putin and his flunkies must pay for their crimes. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the UK Government would support pursuing legally those individuals responsible for the crimes, through the International Criminal Court?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am not going to anticipate the announcement that we may make tomorrow, but I am hugely grateful for the hon. Gentleman raising this issue. We are a proud founding member of the Global Fund and were very pleased to co-host its eighth replenishment alongside South Africa. I look forward to making an announcement very shortly.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

4. What recent steps his Department has taken to facilitate the seizure of frozen Russian assets.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

We have renewed engagement with our allies to pursue all lawful avenues to make Russia pay for Putin’s illegal war on Ukraine. I have engaged with G7 Foreign Ministers on this, and I look forward to speaking to partners at the NATO Hague summit later on today.

[Lisa Smart]

I saw for myself the impact of Russia’s barbarism in Kyiv and Chernihiv last month, and I heard directly from some of the brave Ukrainians who had been subject to war crimes in Yahidne. There is a lot going on in the world at the moment, but what assurances can the Foreign Secretary give the House and those Ukrainians waiting to be able to go home that he is straining every sinew so that Russia pays for its crimes and war crimes?

[Mr Lammy]

Our support is iron-clad. The hon. Lady will have seen our continuing package of sanctions on Russia and will recognise that this issue will be central to our discussions at NATO later on today and tomorrow. Whether it is at the G7, NATO or Weimar+, the UK continues to lead on this critical issue, not just for Ukraine but for European security.

Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. May I join all colleagues in thanking the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter)? She has led on the issue with determination and relentlessness, and she is an example to all of us.

The people of Ukraine are fighting for their country and their continued existence, but they are also fighting for us. There is no way Putin will stop in Ukraine if he gets what he wants. It is right that the UK is supporting Ukraine, and we should continue to do so until a just and lasting peace—on Ukraine’s terms—is found.

I was most recently in Kyiv three weeks ago as part of a delegation of Liberal MPs from across Europe. I was fortunate enough to meet Ukrainian MPs in the Rada and to meet the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights—the ombudsman—who is undertaking incredible work in documenting the extent of the various international crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine and in working with international partners to bring these children home.

One of the most moving moments of my recent visit came when we met two of the children who had experienced for themselves the brutal policy of forced deportation and assimilation. One had had to work relentlessly to have his younger brother returned, and the other had escaped Russian re-education by walking for days to get to safety. Their stories are not isolated tragedies; they are part of a wider state-sponsored strategy to destroy the nation of Ukraine.

Last year, the UK rightly helped to launch the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, which was designed to co-ordinate joint efforts. I commend this Government for their commitment to that, but it is clear that much more is needed. We must demand the full implementation of the 2024 recommendations to Russia from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. We must push for humanitarian and monitoring access to any facilities that are holding these children. We must facilitate communications with authorities to ensure safe returns.

The Ukrainian ombudsman himself told me that the international community needs a special tribunal to take full account of these crimes and to properly hold Putin and his flunkies to account. Each day that these children remain outside their homes and outside their homeland is a day that justice is denied. Our role is clear: we must help to bring them home. The stealing of thousands of Ukrainian children is a particularly heinous crime, but there are also millions more Ukrainian children who have lost their childhoods because of Putin’s actions.

On my recent visit, I also visited Chernihiv to see the extent of the damage caused by constant attacks. I saw for myself the basement in Yahidne where, in the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, dozens of nearby inhabitants, including babies and children, were rounded up by Russian soldiers and tortured for weeks before being liberated by the Ukrainian army.

We know that one of the weapons of war used by the Russian Government is mis and disinformation. In their programme of trying to dehumanise the Ukrainian people, they also try to paint them as not telling the truth. I saw for myself, and the look in the eyes of the people who told me of their experience will stay with me for a very, very long time.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on her speech and on her incredible work across the country to try to make people aware of the awful things happening over in Europe.

I am very lucky to have a large Ukrainian population in Redditch. These are people who have fled from the Donbas and other areas over the past few years, including children who have had 20 homes in their few years on this planet. Now they are here, separated from their homeland and their friends and family members who have been forcibly removed and taken to Russia. The hon. Lady made a powerful point about disinformation. In Redditch, we see and hear every day the impact that it is having on those who may never see their family members again.

[Lisa Smart]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for talking about the Ukrainian communities who are contributing so much in our country. I have asked the Government to give further clarity and more than an 18-month visa extension, to continue to show support for the Ukrainians living in all our constituencies. We know that far too many Ukrainians are being rejected from tenancies, jobs and studying opportunities because they do not have that length of visa ahead of them. The point about mis and disinformation is absolutely right. It is not a new tool, but it is being used in many more sophisticated ways. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to work across Government and internationally to combat it.

In closing, I repeat the calls that I and others have previously made for the Government to move from freezing to actively seizing Russian assets—both the principal and the interest—because we need to support Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. The Government are taking the right approach in co-ordinating these efforts multilaterally, but the UK should be in a position to lead on this and, should progress stall, we must be willing to act unilaterally. These children must be returned, and Putin and his flunkies must pay for their crimes.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Again, I have said much on this matter, particularly on the point about recognition. I am glad that my hon. Friend has recognised what the Government have done, because this is the Government who increased humanitarian aid to the Gazans, and who absolutely made clear our position on international humanitarian law—we did not see that under the last Government. We suspended the sale of arms for use in Gaza. We issued further sanctions on settlers. We have issued more sanctions today. We have now suspended a free trade agreement. We have acted collectively with our partners. We led the charge to get those two diplomatic statements this weekend. We are doing all that we can, and it is now for the Israeli Government to act.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary rightly talks about a two-state solution being the only framework through which we can find a just and lasting peace, and this has long been the case. He also talks about bilateral and multilateral talks at the upcoming conference. If that conference does not achieve the hoped-for success, will the Government consider unilaterally recognising the state of Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

Our position was set out in the Labour manifesto: we believe in recognition. We have always believed that recognition should be part of the process, and that is what we are discussing with our French, Saudi Arabian and other partners.

Sanctions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their work to date on sanctioning Russia. The UK must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies and the brave Ukrainian people in resisting Putin’s aggression. The support for Ukraine across this House sends a really strong message to the Kremlin, so we welcome this latest statutory instrument, which rightly tightens the screw on Russia’s ability to wage its illegal war.

These amendments expand our sanctions regime in three important ways. First, by extending export bans on a wide range of products—chemicals, electronics, plastics, metals and machinery—we are further disrupting the industrial base that fuels Putin’s war machine. Secondly, by banning the transfer of associated software and technical knowledge, including cloud-based solutions, we will prevent the back-door flow of intellectual capital into the Kremlin’s hands. Thirdly, by introducing import bans on Russian synthetic diamonds and helium products, even when processed in third countries, we will cut off future revenue streams to help fund this war. These measures respond to the real-world attempts by Russia to sidestep sanctions by using complex supply chains and third-country networks. They align the UK with our allies—the EU, the United States and the G7—making our collective response far more powerful than going it alone.

However, while I support these measures, I hope that Ministers will consider going further. If the Government are serious about holding Putin to account, sanctions must be not only enforced but escalated. The Liberal Democrats have been saying this for months: the UK should begin the seizure, not just the freezing, of Russian state assets.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he is laying out, and I absolutely agree with him that the support for these measures across this House is really powerful. I was most recently in Kyiv two weeks ago, and the look on the faces of the people subjected to war crimes by the Russian army will stay with me for a very long time. That underlined to me the importance of UK efforts to support them, and I completely agree with his point about moving from freezing to seizing Russian assets. The Minister today and the Foreign Secretary earlier this week talked about working on a multilateral basis. Does my hon. Friend agree that if such an agreement cannot be found, we should consider moving on a unilateral basis in a leadership role for the United Kingdom?

[James MacCleary]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is an estimated £22 billion in frozen assets from Russian central bank reserves held and locked up in the UK at the moment. That money could and should be used to help rebuild Ukraine, provide humanitarian assistance and purchase the matériel that the Ukrainians need to defend themselves, and the UK should certainly be taking a leadership role in seizing those assets as soon as we can. The United States is already moving in that direction, as are EU member states. The United Kingdom, as we have said, should be leading, not lagging behind.

We must also close the loopholes that have allowed Russian oligarchs to continue laundering their dirty money in London. That means properly resourcing the National Crime Agency, strengthening the economic crime legislation, and demanding the use of Magnitsky sanctions not just for individuals but for their family members when wealth is transferred in an attempt to dodge accountability.

As a member of the UK’s parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe, I strongly support the register that the Council of Europe has established, on which the UK is taking a leading role, to record the damage that Russia has done to Ukraine. I know that the Government are backing that work, but I hope that Ministers will promote the register, which does not have a very high profile at the moment, to ensure that victims’ claims are properly documented and Russia is held meaningfully to account for its actions.

Let us not forget that Putin’s ambitions do not end with Ukraine. He is actively working to destabilise other sovereign states, including Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and others in a wider attempt to erode European stability and democratic resilience.

Let me be clear: the Liberal Democrats believe in the rule of law, the sovereignty of nations and the right of people to choose peace over tyranny, and Putin’s war is a grotesque assault on all those principles. This legislation is a necessary step, but it must be the beginning, not the end, of our efforts to hold Putin and the Russian state to account. We support the motion, but we will keep pushing this Government to be bolder, faster and more determined in their support for Ukraine and its defence of the values we all hold dear.