Antisemitism in Modern Society

Debate between Matthew Offord and Bob Stewart

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

It is hard to follow the speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). I pay tribute to her for the actions that she has taken in the past couple of days, as well as for all she has done since first being elected in 2010. It takes a huge amount of courage to do what she has done.

I have a large Jewish community in my constituency, and the work of the Community Security Trust is particularly important there. In fact, I called for this debate after the release of the CST’s figures. I pay tribute to the trust for the work that it does and for its selfless action in looking after the community. I was pleased that my first parliamentary question here asked for money to pay for the trust to look after schoolchildren at their schools. My right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) agreed with me at the time that he did not see why parents should have to pay to keep their children safe just because they were going to school. We continue to fund that work.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the fact that there have been 1,652 antisemitic incidents in the past year, but that is not the whole story. A further 630 potential incidents were reported, but they were not included by the CST because there was no evidence of antisemitic motivation, targeting or content. However, many of the people who suffered those incidents were from the Jewish faith. Previously, we have seen spikes in the number of incidents following military action in Israel or conflict in Gaza or even the west bank, but that has not occurred in the past year. There have been some border skirmishes in which people have been killed, but two particular periods stand out in which there have been spikes in antisemitic incidents.

The first period when the CST recorded an additional number of incidents came during April and May last year, which coincided with the Leader of the Opposition’s past support for a mural in Tower Hamlets coming to light. The so-called graffiti artist Mear One, whom many of us will remember, produced a mural showing people who very much looked like elderly Jewish men sitting around a table supported on the backs of, presumably, African-Caribbean slaves. Many comments were made at the time, which coincided with an increased number of incidents. The second period came in August and September last year, when there was much discussion in the media about whether the Labour party would adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, and the number of antisemitic incidents increased to 150 in those months. I certainly did not want this debate to be about criticising the Labour party per se, but I want Labour to know that when people make comments, there is an effect beyond the coverage in the newspapers.

[Bob Stewart]

I have listened carefully to everything being said today, and I want to assure my colleagues on the Labour Benches that we on the Conservative Benches support them and feel deeply that they are not antisemitic as a whole. We are sad that this is happening.

[Dr Offord]

I do not believe that that intervention was aimed directly at me, but I will say that I have for some time been asked in hustings and during elections, “Is the Labour party antisemitic?” and I have never really engaged in that debate. The simple reason why I could not do that is because the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) is certainly not antisemitic and was very much part of the Labour party. I have therefore always resisted saying that the Labour party is antisemitic, and I have resisted saying that the Leader of the Opposition is antisemitic. I will let others make their minds up about that.

In a very good book by Anthony Julius called “Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England” that I found in the Library, the author suggests that there have been four periods in history when Jews have been prominent and have received antisemitic abuse, and I think that we are now in a fifth. The antisemitism of recent years has taken the form of criticism of Zionism and of the actions and policies of the Government of Israel, which has often manifested itself in direct action, such as the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. However, the new line of attack is different from traditional antisemitism, meaning the hatred of Jews, claims that Jews are inferior to others or a belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy or the Jewish control of capitalism. The new antisemitism differs in the political voices from which it comes. Previously antisemitism was perceived as coming from the political right, but the new antisemites are primarily on the left and, indeed, the far left.

I have a concern about how such views are communicated to the public through social media. The Antisemitism Policy Trust and the CST found that when Google removed “Are Jews evil?” from its autocomplete function in December 2016, 10% fewer people searched for “Are Jews evil?” than in the previous year. Search companies should stop directing people to antisemitic content on the internet, and we must better equip users and remove content when it is uploaded.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I went to Dublin with the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism to visit Facebook and Twitter. I am sure that he will remember that when we spoke to Facebook, its reaction to any kind of racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic comment was, “We must remove it as soon as possible.” However, when we spoke to Twitter, it likened any such posts to comments made in the street to someone as they pass by. We felt that was certainly not an appropriate response. I would like to see the Government and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport consider legislation to prevent such comments from being allowed to remain online.

I am particularly disappointed by two comments that many of us will have seen online yesterday. The first was in response to the right hon. Member for Enfield North when she moved to her current position as an independent Member. Young Labour tweeted:

“Joan Ryan Gone—Palestine Lives”.

As though she had any effect on either Palestine, the west bank, Gaza or Israel.

The second comment, and I do not think it necessary to name the Member, was about the financial backers of the new Independent Group:

“Support from the State of Israel, which supports both Conservative and Labour ‘Friends of Israel’, of which Luciana was chair, is possible and I would not condemn those who suggest it”.

Well, I certainly would. I cannot speak for Labour Friends of Israel, but I am sure it is the same as Conservative Friends of Israel, which does not receive any money from the Israeli Government—it receives its finances from within this country, as per the law.

I ask Labour Front Benchers to do more, and not only about the members I have mentioned today and the comments they have made online; they also need to actively seek out those who are causing a terrible and emotional time for so many of my residents.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree has shown us today what antisemitism feels like, but many of my constituents show me on an almost daily basis how it affects them. One comment, on which I will end, came from a gentleman today and, like me, he is very concerned about the removal of a passport from a British person, “If Mr Corbyn was to be elected, he would know that I have the right of return to Israel, and no doubt I would have my passport taken away.” I do not believe that, and I certainly hope this country never ends up behaving in such a way, but we cannot go on like this. We cannot allow people to behave in the way they have, and we must stop it before people leave this country.

Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

Debate between Matthew Offord and Bob Stewart

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on promoting the Bill, and I know that it will make progress today. As many people have said, 80% of British society support organ donation, but 20% do not. I want to speak on behalf of that 20% to ensure that they are carried along with the debate, rather than left behind.

A gentleman in my constituency, Vijay Patel, was recently unnecessarily killed, and his family took great comfort from the fact that his organs were used to help other people. For me, that is such a gift, and I commend anyone who donates, and their families, for allowing the donation to take place. Many people prepare themselves to be organ donors after they die, and their families are an integral part of that process. Within that wider framework, the crucial role of the donor’s family must be understood, because their role regarding the ownership of the body after a person dies, and their duties towards it, is a central aspect of the grieving process.

There has recently been a lot of concern about a north London coroner who refused to release bodies, which is causing a great deal of concern to my constituents. It therefore follows logically that the family must be involved in organ donation, and I believe that their consent is paramount at the crucial time. Those families need reassurance along their pathway towards consent.

It has been said that there are religious differences on donation, but that is incorrect. Both Islam and Judaism allow organ transplants from live and deceased patients in order to continue and save lives. One factor that perhaps some are not aware of, and that might influence the decision-making process of some families, is how the point of death is decided. Some people regard death as defined by cardiovascular criteria, which is when the heart ceases to function. Others use cessation of brain function—brain stem death—as their criterion. Those two distinctions sometimes make people uncomfortable with donation.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recognised both definitions of death when it formulated the NICE guidelines that explain how healthcare professionals should support a bereaved family when discussing organ donation. There is one pathway for those who accept only cardiovascular death, and another for those who accept brain stem death. As a result, families are helped to understand how they might be able to combine deceased organ donation in a way that does not interfere with some religious traditions.

Enabling someone accessible to guide a family through the donation process is a humane, sensible and constructive proposal. A properly trained and resourced transplant co-ordinator should be able to do that, as it is the most important way in which families can be supported at a terrible time in their lives. In practice, however, under the system proposed, there would be less institutional incentive for health services to employ such people.

The Government are aware of the issues around transplantation, and they cannot plead ignorance in that our religious communities are being unresponsive to human need. In 2013, leading Muslim and Jewish groups wrote jointly to the Government suggesting a way forward in which an enhanced and improved opt-in system could be introduced that would alleviate their concerns. Improvements would include a Government-backed statement that Jews and Muslims could sign, which would enable them to donate organs in a manner compatible with their beliefs. If that approach were to be adopted, it would enable the two communities to be even more supportive of an opt-in system than they have been in the past. That proposal has been raised on several occasions, but I am afraid it has been ignored. The hon. Member for Coventry North West mentioned former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, who he said opposed such measures. As I understand it, however, the current Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Mirvis, is in favour of the proposal I have just outlined.

Life, and indeed death, has changed for many people. More people want, understandably, to spend their final months at home. If they die at home, organ donation is much less likely. Healthcare professionals who need to secure consent for donation must have a conversation with organ donors, and their loved ones, about why they are best placed to give the gift of life if they remain in hospital. That conversation is a natural feature of an opt-in service. Under an opt-out service, there will be little incentive to have that complex discussion with potential donors and their families. The result could be that patients might drift to spend their last months in hospital.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I ask my hon. Friend, as a doctor, how quickly the medical profession can assess whether someone who has died is the right sort of person for a donation? So few people are the right fit for a donation—1%, as I understand.

[Dr Offord]

I cannot mislead the House, because unfortunately I am not a medical doctor and I am not able to answer that question. I am certainly content to talk about socio-economic deprivation in places such as Cornwall, which was part of my PhD thesis, but I will leave the issue raised by my hon. Friend alone. He mentioned the 1%, but other potential donors and their families could be intimidated by clinical settings, have problems with language skills or be too emotionally distraught actively to engage with a system that lacked incentives to ensure professional support throughout their decision-making process. Such potential donors and families could find their rights eroded in that practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made a point that I wish to echo. The underlying question raised by some considerations is whether public services should treat patients and their families as citizens whose active consent must be sought as a legal duty, or as subjects whose ability to choose whether to donate or not depends on the goodwill of well-meaning but overstretched professionals. Ultimately, an opt-in system that harnesses the role of both religious and civil society to increase organ donation from deceased donors is, for me, the best way forward to maximise organ donation while defending not only religious freedoms, but the rights of all potential donors and families.

Proscription of Hezbollah

Debate between Matthew Offord and Bob Stewart

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Hezbollah is appalling and I would very much like to see it banned. Only one argument might say that it should not be: the security services might be—we will never know this—advising the Minister that it is better to keep it where we can see it rather than send it underground. That might be the only argument against a ban.

[Dr Offord]

I am not in favour of banning things, I have to say. But the hurt, resentment, agitation and general disruption that this annual march causes—not only to the Metropolitan police, but to the people of London—should in itself lead to its being banned. This year, I called again on the Metropolitan police not to allow the march to go ahead. Infuriatingly, days after the Grenfell Tower fire, with the police massively stretched by the tragedy, the organisers insisted on going ahead with the march even though the Met did not have the resources to police it. That was reprehensible on the part of the IHRC.

This year, the march was led by a director of the IHRC, Nazim Ali, who in a speech, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) mentioned, blamed the Grenfell fire tragedy on

“the Zionist supporters of the Tory Party”.

He also accused the Israel Defence Forces of being a

“terrorist organisation that murdered Palestinians, Jews and British soldiers.”

Participants in the rally called for the destruction of Israel and waved slogans, including one stating “We are all Hezbollah”. Shockingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the Leader of the Opposition has spoken at the annual event in the past. I take this opportunity to call on him not to do so again in future.

As we have heard, senior Hezbollah officials have repeatedly said that Hezbollah is a single entity, proudly stating that “resistance” is their “priority”, and even publicly mocking the UK and other European countries for distinguishing between the two wings.

Famagusta

Debate between Matthew Offord and Bob Stewart

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate. As he said, it is extremely timely, given that six of my colleagues and I travelled to the divided island of Cyprus only last week. It was not my first visit, and, indeed, it was not the first time that I had crossed the border and entered the occupied territory, but it was my first opportunity to travel to Famagusta.

I could speak about many issues that arose during that trip. I could speak about our encounter with the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus—which people found very moving—about stolen artefacts, or about access to property or land. However, I want to make just two points. First, I want to describe my observation of a situation on the island which I found truly inexplicable. Secondly, I want to talk about the effect of the huge military presence in the occupied zone.

Let me begin by talking about the beaches, particularly those in Famagusta. To witness what I can only describe as a ghost town, frozen in time, would be interesting if it did not affect so many people in the here and now. Many people are unable to visit the graves of their relatives or friends, access their properties or businesses, or even visit their own beaches without harassment.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

There are 371 people—mostly conscripts from this country—buried in Wayne’s Keep. We must ensure that we have access to that graveyard and look after it. Those men were killed mainly by Greek Cypriot terrorist fighters, and we must not forget that.

[Dr Offord]

My hon. Friend is right. As the record shows, I have asked parliamentary questions about the issue, because we have our own graves in that country. I shall not open a debate about the historical aspects of the island—we realise that there are many sides to all the stories that we can tell—but we are very concerned about the graves of all the people on the island, be they Turkish Cypriots, Greek Cypriots or British service personnel who died and were buried there.

I can name some of the people who have been affected. These are not names that I have plucked out of the air. There is Maria, who was formerly a regular visitor to the beach; there is Antonis, who is denied access to his grandfather’s property; and there is Costas, who is unable to visit the King George hotel, where his father worked for more than 30 years. Those are all real people with stories to tell. Owing to the behaviour of the authorities, which we experienced, I shall not reveal their surnames, because I fear that there would be further repercussions against them.

What I found striking about Famagusta was not just the sight of hundreds of residential and commercial properties lying empty, but the simple issue of access to the beach. I think that my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Byron Davies), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) will relate to this, given that they have coastal constituencies.

Walking along the sand in Famagusta means having to enter a contested area, alongside the overbearing corrugated iron and barbed-wire fences which enclose the tower blocks that surround the beach and give it the air of a militarised zone. This barrier extends across and alongside the beach until it meets the curvature of the water’s edge and then enters the sea, preventing anyone from moving along the coast. Both that and the mines in the sea ensure that there is no access. To someone who grew up on a beach—literally—I would find that very difficult to explain. Even if someone could navigate that, the military presence in the watchtower will shout at them to get away from the fence and certainly not to take any pictures. I wonder whether the Turkish authorities are embarrassed by that sight. I leave it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other Members in the Chamber to decide whether that is so; I certainly think that it is.

In an attempt to intimidate us even further, the Turkish authorities had another security presence on the beach. He was quite a peculiar person, in his own shorts and with comb-over long grey hair. He marched around the beach at great pace, walking closely by us to intimidate and to see what we were doing, and all the time we could hear the Turkish border guards shouting at him through his earpiece at the top of their voices. It was one of the most peculiar scenes I have ever seen.

It is not just the environment in Famagusta that has been physically manipulated by the Turkish forces; so, too, have the people who have been relocated from mainland Turkey—the settlers, known as the Türkiyeli. Northern Cyprus’s first official census performed in 1996 showed that there were more than 200,000 people in the occupied territory. A decade later that had increased by 65,000. A third census was carried out by the United Nations in 2011, and it recorded a population of over 294,000, but these results have been disputed by many political parties, trade unions and indeed local newspapers. Accusations of under-counting were made because the TNRC—Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—had said to Turkey that there were more than 700,000 people in the occupied territory in order to gain access to greater funds. What we do know as a fact is that over 50% of the people who come from the mainland have no common heritage or culture with the indigenous Turkish or Cypriot people.

We often hear in this Chamber—I am sure the Minister has heard me say it to him many times—about the settlements in Israel and how they are illegal under international law. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you are glad that I will not be opening up that debate, but I never hear criticism of Turkey for doing the same thing, yet its actions are a clear breach of the fourth Geneva convention. Article 49 makes it clear that an occupying power may not forcibly deport protected persons or deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into occupied territory. Turkey has done this; Turkey has clearly breached this convention and there can be no dispute that immigration to the occupied territory is unlawful.

What is not disputed is the number of Turkish troops in the north. In 2013 the Cyprus Center for Strategic Studies estimated that 74,000 troops were based in the occupied territory in Cyprus, an area of 1,295 square miles. To put that into context, in April the UK had 87,060 Army service personnel and we have a land mass of 83,700 square miles. The contrast is obvious and illustrates Turkey’s determination to maintain its military presence in Cyprus.

Indeed, on Saturday we witnessed the over-the-top display of soldiers, trucks and howitzers as traffic was stopped to allow army personnel to travel through Famagusta. It was clear that this was purely a public display of weaponry designed to do little more than intimidate the indigenous Turkish and Cypriot population into not seeking the removal of the Turkish army in the occupied territory.

The European Parliament has repeatedly voiced its support for the return of Famagusta to its lawful inhabitants. The resettlement of Varosha and Famagusta on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions would have a positive effect in seeking a comprehensive, viable solution to the Cyprus problem, as it would create a tangible example of co-operation and coexistence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots on the island and serve as a symbol of future harmony and prosperity.

Famagusta may be a forbidden, occupied town in Cyprus, but it will never be a forgotten community among its lawful inhabitants and its friends in this place.