Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long]

Yes, the situation in Pakistan is extremely serious, given that people are essentially being sentenced to death for exercising one of the fundamental rights—the right to change one’s religion. That is hugely important.

As a Christian, my faith is part and parcel of who I am, and is part of the reason why I am involved in politics. I recognise the importance of faith and the constructive role that it can play in society and in our lives. However, I also recognise the damaging role that religious or any other ideological fundamentalism can have in restricting the freedoms of others. In the same way that my faith is important to me, I recognise the importance to others of their religious freedom, and that freedom, and the related right to freedom from religious belief, are hugely important and must be protected.

While working on issues of religious freedom and reading some of the harrowing cases that have been discovered, I have been struck by how lucky we are to live in a country where we enjoy relative liberty. However, we should never be complacent and should always guard against the erosions of those freedoms. In our society, there are challenges in balancing the rights of not only those of different faiths, but of those who wish to live a life free from religious interference. The question of how we balance those competing rights needs careful and thoughtful assessment.

The exclusion of all religion or faith from the public sphere is contrary to freedom of religion and belief, and so, equally, is the imposition of faith, or faith-based observances, practices or rules, on those who choose not to practise any religion. This tension has often left the right to freedom of religion without effective champions. As the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief said to the APPG when he visited Westminster, the religious are often more comfortable seeking protection for their own faith, but are wary of extending that freedom to those with whom they disagree.

Conversely, those who are liberal and usually champion human rights and freedom are often wary of religion and reluctant to see its restriction in the same terms as other forms of persecution. It is therefore hugely important that we reflect on article 18 of the UN declaration of human rights, which sets out clearly what is meant by freedom of religion and belief:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

As a co-sponsor of the debate, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this timely debate. On the United Nations and article 18, does the hon. Lady agree that the UN needs to do more, as does its Human Rights Council, and some of the council’s members, who do not have particularly good records when it comes to religious freedom and freedom of speech in their country?

[Naomi Long]

That is a hugely important point, and I hope that as we explore those issues today, we can focus on those member states that do not make their full contribution, either at home or in the international sphere.

Article 18 remains the benchmark against which the enjoyment of the freedom of religion or belief should be measured on a global scale. It protects traditional, non-traditional and new religious beliefs and practices, as well as numerous beliefs not associated with divine or transcendent powers and not of a religious nature. Everyone has the freedom to manifest their religion or belief, either alone or together with others, publicly or privately. No one should be subject to coercion that would impair their freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of someone else’s choice; nor is discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief permissible.

Unlike many other human rights, freedom of religion or belief is as yet not directly addressed in a focused United Nations convention. As a consequence, this freedom has for many years been something of a “residual” right, and in practice, it remains on the margins of the family of human rights. However, research has found that almost 75% of the world’s population live in countries with high levels of Government restrictions on freedom of religion, or in countries where those with certain religious affiliations face a high level of hostility, and that figure is rising. Across the globe, there is widespread denial of freedom of worship, and of freedom to teach, promote and publicly express one’s religion and beliefs.

The APPG’s report instances examples of state intimidation, discrimination and violence towards people on account of their religion or belief, as well as situations in which states simply do not offer adequate protection from persecution by non-state actors. That is not limited to any one region or form of religion. As I mentioned, we are only too aware of the deeply troubling scale of the violations of freedom of religion or belief worldwide. Whether it is the Baha’is in Iran, Christians in the middle east, Jewish people in Europe or atheists in Indonesia, what we are exploring today is a truly global concern that affects the full range of religious and non-religious beliefs.

I want to look briefly at why we need to protect religious freedom. It is vital to remember the importance of protecting freedom of religion or belief in a wider context. Although it is important in its own right, it is also crucial to achieving a wide range of foreign policy goals, such as the prevention of conflict. Violations of freedom of religion or belief often involve the violent persecution of both individuals and groups, and often take the form of discrimination in access to education, employment and health services; limitations in the ability of individuals to marry or retain custody of children; limitations in the right to publish literature or participate in the media; or limitations on the right to preserve cultural and religious heritage. All those are important, both from a Foreign and Commonwealth Office perspective and from an international development perspective.

It is a key dynamic of freedom of religion or belief that it is interconnected with a wide range of other political, social, economic and cultural rights, from freedom of expression and association to the prevention of poverty. That is recognised by the FCO, which stated:

“In countries around the world, religious freedom is often crucial to ensuring conflict prevention and post-conflict peacebuilding. Indeed, many conflicts have their roots in the tensions between different religious communities. Violence against a religious group can be a forewarning of wider conflict. Freedom of religion or belief is therefore important to achieving the UK's wider security agenda.”

I also want to look at the nature of persecution, which is changing. Religious persecution, particularly that of Christians, is on the rise and is becoming more intense in more countries. The nature of this persecution is incredibly varied. In some situations, it will take the form of a squeeze, with pressure being applied, while in others it is in the form of smash, with recourse to violence. Either kind represents a denial of article 18 and should be resisted. From November 2012 to October 2013, Open Doors recorded 2,123 killings of Christians worldwide—nearly double the number for the previous year. Nigeria and Syria were the most prolific countries, followed by Pakistan and Egypt. For obvious reasons, it could be argued that those figures are conservative, if we think about the percentage of incidents reported and how frightened people often are.

Recent trends suggest that squeeze pressure, where there is no physical violence but pressure is applied to prevent Christians and others from being able to express their beliefs freely, has increasingly become the main form of abuse. It is much harder to identify and document. However, perhaps as a result, it can be the most destructive and harmful to individuals and families. Life in the family sphere also suffers, in particular for those who exercise their right to change religion. Hostility from the state or neighbours can place not only the individual but the family under considerable pressure. That social and religious pressure can lead to pressure from within the family, with divorce and death threats common after conversion. The right to change religion is specifically protected by the wording of article 18, but there is a fear that denials of that right are not fully pursued in considerations at Government level.

Persecution also impacts on the community sphere, manifesting itself in restrictions on employment or access to resources. There is evidence, for example, that Christian villagers are denied water from wells in northern Nigeria by reason of their faith. The social stigma involved in such cases cannot be underestimated. The creation of sectarian and ethnic conflicts over perceived differences in religion are often a linked issue, where those of a particular religious faith are ascribed traits or beliefs that are either shunned by the rest of the community or portrayed as disloyal or dishonourable to the community in which they reside. I am unsure that any Member present today could imagine having to keep their faith a secret to the point where they cannot trust anyone with that knowledge, not even family and friends—to know that to do so could mean death or injury for us or for our families. Simply being found in ownership of a bible, for example, can put someone in extreme physical danger.

I want also to examine some of the main sources of denials of article 18 rights and to give a sense of quite how wide ranging and global the problem is. The report produced by the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief identifies two different but intrinsically linked dimensions of denials of freedom of religion or belief—direct state denial and state failures in the protection of freedom of religion.

Direct state denial includes incidents in which the state either actively persecutes individuals and communities on the basis of their beliefs or denies them the possibility freely to choose what they believe, whether they it express it alone or as a community. Under that theme, we find instances of Islamic extremism, communist oppression and, in the most extreme cases, Government policies of eradication of either one faith or belief group or of all those who seek to exercise their freedoms. Islamic extremism is arguably currently the biggest threat to freedom of religion and belief. There has been a major exodus of Christians from the middle east following the Arab spring, and atheists in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been heavily discriminated against, with laws against blasphemy being used to stifle free speech and freedom of belief.

North Korea is a classic example of communist oppression and has been in the media of late after topping the Open Doors world watch list as the most difficult country on earth in which to be a Christian. I was honoured to host a meeting between Open Doors, Church leaders and North Korean exiles, during which we heard first hand of the persecution and abuse that Christians and other religious groups face in North Korea. It made for harrowing listening. Like others in that country, Christians have to survive under one of the most oppressive regimes in contemporary times while dealing with corruption, disease and hunger. Christianity is viewed with extreme suspicion as a western ideology, and I was deeply moved and disturbed to hear from those who have had family members disappear and be imprisoned because of their faith.

The Baha’i faith and associated activities are officially banned in Iran, and its estimated 300,000 adherents have been subjected to a state policy of extinction. I have brought before the House previously the plight of the Baha’i community in Iran. Unfortunately, the situation has not improved. Places of worship, schools, cemeteries, properties and businesses have been destroyed or confiscated by the Iranian regime. The Government-controlled mass media disseminates anti-Baha’i propaganda and has created a sense of violence with impunity for attackers. Currently, 110 Baha’is are in prison, facing charges of espionage and threatening national security that potentially carry the death sentence.

A state’s failure to protect freedom of religion or belief entails the denial of freedom to choose or reject religions. According to the Pew Research Centre’s religion and public life project, 39 state Governments hinder individuals in converting from one religion or belief to another. It is currently a particular problem in India, where several states have legislation that prevents or draws attention to religious conversions. In Indonesia, a young atheist was sentenced to two and a half years in prison after posting on a Facebook page set up for atheists. In Egypt, Coptic Christians have for decades been denied permission to open new churches.

It is important to note the link between failed states and persecution. Freedom of religion and belief is often a major casualty of civic and political breakdown, and a lack of freedom of religion and belief could be a contributing factor in that breakdown. Particularly where it happens at a sub-state or regional level, it may not be recognised or fully understood that, although the state may not be the aggressor, if it fails to intervene to protect people, it is contributing to persecution.

That is just a small glimpse of the range and degree of discrimination faced by people around the world owing to their religious or non-religious beliefs. I could have highlighted many other cases, as I am sure other hon. and right hon. Members will today. I hope that the debate will serve a number of purposes. The first is to raise public awareness of the issue’s importance. We are resigned to the fact that the nation will not be crowded around their televisions this afternoon to watch the Parliament channel, but there will be those who have an active interest in learning more about the subject and in becoming more active advocates in defence of religious freedom as a result.

The second purpose of the debate is to focus our attention and to encourage renewed vigour in our Government and abroad in defence of the principles. Having raised the matter with the Government before, I know that we are pushing at an open door, but we must continue to push. I have also met representatives of other Governments who have heard what has been raised in Parliament and have come to discuss matters with us, so I want to shine a light on the issue today to keep the conversation going.

Finally, this debate is also an opportunity for hon. and right hon. Members to raise with the Government specific concerns about individual countries, faiths, and regimes, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

For those of us older Members who find it difficult to count to eight, and because the clock is not working, could you give us a one-minute warning, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Oh, it is working; it has only just started. ]

Those of us who were born immediately after the war—I was born in the early 1950s—grew up with an innate optimism that each year would bring further progress. After all, the Nazis had been defeated in the second world war and the forces of tolerance had prevailed. We were growing up at time of huge improvements in medicine and the introduction of mass vaccination programmes. We were conscious of countries receiving their independence in the 1960s and the freedom that that brought. We were conscious of improvements in television and radio broadcasting and of people’s ability to access education in ways that had never previously been possible. Man was reaching the moon, and there were great scientific and technological advances. There was an innate belief that each year would bring greater progress, greater freedoms and a greater improvement in standards of living for people around the world. I suppose the only thing that remained outstanding was the iron curtain and the Soviet empire, which eventually disintegrated.

It is sad, however, that as we look around the globe today—the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) expounded on this so well—we see a world that is in many ways going back to intolerance and barbarism. I recently went to Somalia, and the Foreign Office would only allow me to spend a single day there because of the threat posed by al-Shabaab, which has almost completely destroyed that country’s security. The day after I left Mogadishu, a huge car bomb killed seven people outside the palace that is the official residence of the President of Somalia. Prior to visiting Mogadishu, I had been in Juba, South Sudan, where it was almost impossible to get out of the city because of ethnic tensions between Dinka and Nuer. The country has almost completely disintegrated as a consequence of intolerance and conflict between tribes.

Christians have been almost completely driven out of the middle east. Countries that had hitherto been tolerant of religious minorities are becoming increasingly intolerant. We have seen large numbers of Christians tragically murdered in Peshawar and Pakistani blasphemy laws applied with greater rigour.

[Mark Pritchard]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I will not give way, because many colleagues want to speak, and I am about to come to the point my hon. Friend made earlier.

The question for me is this: how do we start to return the world to some semblance of tolerance? My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) mentioned the United Nations. I think that this work has to be done at the highest international level, in the United Nations General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. A number of countries promote tolerance, and we have partners among Muslim states that are keen to promote tolerance, such as Jordan and Morocco.

There are many international indices of corruption. I suggest to colleagues on the Treasury Bench that we ought to start thinking about international indices of tolerance, because that would allow us to make a judgment on how tolerant some countries are and to encourage them to follow the example of more tolerant countries. I remember being set an essay at school: “To what extent should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?” I do not think that we should tolerate the intolerance whereby people are not allowed to practise their faith as they wish or to change their faith. Those are fundamental human rights.

Much concern is expressed in this House about climate change and future resources, because we are concerned about the sort of world our children and grandchildren will inherit. I suggest that a world in which people can exchange ideas, pray without fear of being murdered and have a sense of identity is equally important for our children and grandchildren. These are not transitory concerns about what might be happening in one particular country at one particular time, for example what is happening today in Nigeria, Egypt, Iran or Iraq; they are fundamental concerns about the values of the world as a whole as we go forward through the 21st century.

The Foreign Office, and particularly my noble Friend Baroness Warsi, has been doing a lot of excellent work on this, but we need to do more. The United Kingdom has a long history of religious tolerance, because we learnt from the Reformation and the counter-Reformation, when many people were burnt at the stake and some really horrific things happened. On Sunday I was proud to attend Roman Catholic mass in my constituency, where the community was saying goodbye to their priest, who has been the priest for Banbury for the past 10 years. Five continents were represented in that one congregation worshipping together harmoniously. I think that in all our communities in this country we have a great degree of tolerance.

Therefore, I think that we should take a lead on this issue in the United Nations, both in the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. It will need to be persistent work. It is just as important as climate change and many of the other issues that grip the United Nations and the major councils of the world. The ability to pray and worship as one wishes is a fundamental human right, and one that we, as elected democrats, should always seek to defend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

My hon. Friend, who stands up for Christians and other groups remarkably well—as I have had occasion to observe over years in this place—is absolutely right. In fact, my understanding is that, originally, the Chinese authorities were quite well disposed to Falun Gong. It was only when it became hugely popular that they felt that any mass popular movement, even one as harmless as that, posed a threat to their totalitarian control.

I fully expect my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), should she catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I hope she will, to give us chapter and horrible verse about what is happening to Christians in North Korea. I want to flag up the fact that the splendid report that the United Nations arranged to be compiled describes what is going on in North Korea as analogous to the crimes committed by the Nazis. It states:

“In many instances, the violations of human rights found by the commission constitute crimes against humanity. These are not mere excesses of the State; they are essential components of a political system that has moved far from the ideals on which it claimed to be founded”.

Pakistan has been mentioned in one context today and I am now going to mention it in another. In June 2009, a Roman Catholic woman, Asia Bibi, got into an argument with some Muslim neighbours over whether she should be allowed to drink from the same water supply as them. As a result, she was accused of blasphemy. I have to say that the blasphemy laws of Pakistan are a very handy weapon for those who have an enemy anywhere in society, because all they have to do is to say that someone has defamed or insulted the Prophet or the religion and that person may, like Asia Bibi, find herself under sentence of death.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend is speaking about Pakistan. Earlier, hon. Members agreed that the United Nations should do more. Does he agree that the Commonwealth should also do more, particularly for Christians and other religious minorities that are being persecuted in Pakistan, India and other parts of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth human rights working group needs to be far more proactive?

[Dr Lewis]

That is absolutely central to the whole question. If the Commonwealth is good for anything at all, it is good for asserting the moral authority and best values that have bound our countries together. If we in this free Parliament do not speak out for oppressed minorities, nobody else will do so effectively.

To revert to the case of Asia Bibi, who remains under sentence of death, what is even more tragic is that the Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, who visited her in prison, was murdered as a result of supporting her and opposing the blasphemy laws, as was the only Christian member of Pakistan’s Cabinet, the Minority Affairs Minister, Shahbaz Bhatti. The prevailing circumstances in Pakistan really are atrocious.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) on securing this timely debate and bringing it before the House. I also thank Members for their tolerance, in this debate about tolerance, for my earlier interventions. I had not intended to speak, but I will, if I may, contribute towards a little.

On the United Nations, I completely agree that article 18 needs far more definition of what fundamental human rights and freedom of speech mean, and far more elaboration of where freedom of religion sits within freedom of speech and fundamental human rights. Much is done by the UN around the world on freedom of speech, but greater focus is needed on freedom of religion. Although Members have highlighted persecution of people of all faiths, we are undoubtedly seeing unprecedented persecution against the Christian church. That can include Catholics, Protestants, evangelicals within the Protestant tradition and others as well.

I mentioned the Commonwealth earlier, and I will do so again, because I believe that it should be doing far more to ensure that its members abide by its founding and fundamental principles: both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In particular, I think of Pakistan. The Department for International Development’s aid budget to Pakistan has increased significantly, and I support that. However, the Government should be pushing more than they already are—although they are pushing more than the previous Government—on ensuring that people are able to express their faith in the way that they see fit.

[Rehman Chishti]

On Pakistan, does my hon. Friend agree that in politics, as in life, there is always a window of opportunity when one can push for change? In Pakistan at the moment, there is a new Government with a clear majority. Unlike the previous Government, which was a five-party coalition, they can do things. Prime Minister Sharif was a Minister under General Zia when many of these blasphemy laws were introduced. Therefore, with his close links to the clerics, changes can be brought about if the right pressures are applied by the international community.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend is probably the most knowledgeable on Pakistan in this House, so I defer to his wisdom. However, I am talking about leveraging—not having conditional DFID aid—UK taxpayers’ money so that we maximise the return on that money through aid and development. That can include, for example, ensuring that those people who want to have no faith or who want to convert from a particular faith—let us say from Islam to Christianity—can do so without fear of persecution. As my hon. Friend will know, that persecution can range from denial of access to public services, health care and education through to death, rape and torture. That is going on today in different parts of the world as we speak, and it is completely unacceptable.

I think also of India, another member of the Commonwealth. I joined Members from across the House last year in writing to the Indian Government about the changes to the laws in Orissa. Other states are changing their laws to say that people cannot choose which god, gods or faith they follow. Again, the Commonwealth must consider that issue.

Nigeria is another Commonwealth member and, of course, UK aid funding to it has increased considerably. Again, I support that. A lot of the budget is going to counter terrorism and I support that, too, but far more of the money ought to be going into interfaith dialogue and reconciliation between communities. The President, Goodluck Jonathan, needs to do far more to protect both the Muslim and Christian populations. At the moment, the status quo is not acceptable; let us hope that those young girls will soon be released. I support what the British Government are doing in Nigeria, but the Nigerian Government need to do far more to crack down on corruption so that British taxpayers’ money goes into interfaith dialogue and reducing religious tensions in that community.

[Rehman Chishti]

On interfaith dialogue, does my hon. Friend agree that when Islam or other faiths are misapplied, the Muslim community or the communities involved must ensure that they address that? An 18-year-old named Mr Deghayes went to Syria and fought as a terrorist, but he was described as a martyr by his father. There is no way he can be described as a martyr. He took part in a civil war, he was a terrorist and it is wrong for his father to say that. The wider Muslim community says, as I do, that he is a terrorist. When the faith is misapplied, those in the wider community must address that and that can only be good for interfaith dialogue.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The misapplication of faith around the world is a problem. The problem is not true religion, but false religion and the misinterpretation of faith. The majority of people of true faith want to make the world a better place.

On the issue of speaking out, I think it would be helpful to those of different faiths around the world to hear a little more from people in this country of differing faiths who stand up for freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the countries in which people of different faiths are being persecuted. We should speak out and say that we think they should enjoy the same freedoms as we do in the United Kingdom. Specifically—let me make this clear in terms—some of the Muslim leaders in this country should speak up from the cities of the United Kingdom for freedom of religion and speech in places such as Pakistan and India.

On Iran, many Members will know the history of Persia better than I do, but it was, of course, King Cyrus who inspired the charter on fundamental rights, with the so-called Cyrus cylinder. If one goes to the United Nations building in New York, one can see a copy of it there on the wall. Interestingly, that king helped the Jews to return and paid for the building of the temple. On the persecution of the Christians, the one or two remaining people of the Jewish tradition, and the Baha’i in Iran, I would say to the leadership that Persia has a proud tradition of standing up for freedom of speech and freedom of religion and of co-existing with people of other faiths.

My view is that if leaders of countries, religious leaders and the people are self-confident in their faith and in their god and/or gods, they do not need to go around persecuting people. They do not need to live in insecurity if they are secure in their own faith and their own tradition. Those who would persecute using the leverage of leadership and seniority are doing their own faith and tradition a disservice by suggesting that there is an insecurity inherent within it.

I want also to mention Egypt. I had the privilege some years ago of visiting Egypt four or five times—for the benefit of those in the Lobby, I hasten to add that I did so privately and funded out of my own purse, or rather wallet. The Coptic tradition has had a huge and positive impact on the culture of Egypt. I know that the Minister knows the country well. I know the Government are doing a huge amount to ensure that the new constitution in Egypt is not only implemented, but implemented in spirit. It is important that the buildings and even more so the people of the Coptic Church are given full protection in Egypt.

With reference to China and in particular the Xinjiang region and Uighur Muslims, it is right that those Muslims should be able to practise their religion without fear of persecution, but it is also in the Chinese national interest and the Chinese national security interest not to put in place measures that help breed the radicalisation of young people in that part of China. If the Chinese Government want to sow persecution, they may in the future reap a radicalised element within their own borders and their own community. I hope they will look again at their policy on Uighur Muslims and the Xinjiang region and other parts of China.

I pay tribute to Open Doors, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and other faith groups that do so much to promote religious tolerance, as well as to those churches in my constituency—in the diocese of Hereford, my home diocese some years ago, the diocese of Lichfield, and others within the Catholic faith and other parts of the Protestant Church.

This has been a timely debate. We need to keep a watching brief on these issues. As more Members visit Burma—I know that members of the International Development Committee recently visited—I hope they will speak out for religious freedom.