Hong Kong: Bounties for Exiled Pro-democracy Activists
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is important that, if China wishes to sustain and strengthen the position of Hong Kong on the global stage, it not only adheres to what it was a signatory to but recognises that there are important elements in recognising the vibrancy of any financial centre. I spent 20 years in the financial services sector and dealt extensively with areas in China and Hong Kong. One of the points we need to emphasise as a Government is that the vibrancy of a financial centre is protected through the transparency of justice systems and the very transparent application of laws. The national security law in China is set up to intimidate, prosecute and arrest and detain innocent individuals, Jimmy Lai being just one example. I assure my noble friend that we will continue to make that case forcefully, directly and bilaterally, to the Chinese Administration as well as to those in authority in Hong Kong.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, as your Lordships know, along with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have been sanctioned by the Chinese, and it is not just me but my whole family. The long arm of China is something we have to be very conscious of. It is now described by lawyers internationally as transnational suppression. Many nations are now doing this: their reach goes beyond their own borders when they oppress their citizens. We have seen it with Russia and Iran and we are seeing it with China. What concerns young Hong Kongers who live in this country is that they might not be able to travel. They are fearful that, in transit, they will be arrested by less hospitable, less human rights-concerned nations and transported back to either Hong Kong or China to be prosecuted.
The threat to the safety of those who have had these bounties placed on their heads is very serious and real. We have to remember that a police station was set up in Glasgow where arrests could be made and intimidation applied to people who have settled in this country because of their fears. I ask the Minister, who I know is very sensitive to all this, what the Government are doing in their conversations with China and with the leaders in Hong Kong. Why are more of them not put on targeted Magnitsky sanctions lists? I want to hear what the Government do when they meet Chinese officials.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I know these things directly from our conversations and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her valuable insights. Equally, I know the great challenges imposed on many colleagues, both in this House and in the other place. Indeed, there are members of His Majesty’s Government who are now Ministers and are subject to the sanctions she listed. On the issue of future Magnitsky sanctions, I am proud of our record across the piece. We continue to look at all our levers to ensure that those who commit egregious abuses of human rights are held to account.
On the specific transnational issues, my right honourable friend the Security Minister, Tom Tugendhat, who has himself experienced the impact of sanctions, has been directing the Defending Democracy Taskforce to review our UK approach to transnational repression, specifically with China and Hong Kong. Let me be very clear: there are three major things we ask consistently. We call on Beijing to remove the national security law; that has to happen. We consider China to be in an ongoing state of non-compliance with the Sino-British joint declaration, which is why we suspended our extradition agreement. We continue to work with other partners, including agencies such as Interpol, to ensure that there are no abuses of these international agencies as well.
Azerbaijan: Khojaly Massacre
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the right reverent Prelate raises the important issue of Russia’s role. To be quite clear, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the UK has suspended all direct engagement with the Russian authorities, except on a very limited number of issues including the Ukraine crisis. We have no plan to engage directly, but we welcome the interventions of other key partners. I think Russia’s war on Ukraine has hindered the progress that was being made. Whether in the context of Russia’s illegal war on Ukraine or the ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, dialogue, discourse and ultimately a peaceful negotiation are desirable outcomes. But Russia’s intervention on the sovereign land of another country cannot be ignored. In that context, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate agrees, Russia can end that conflict now by withdrawing.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, given that the debate has turned to Russia, today Vladimir Kara-Murza is being put on trial in Moscow. He is a very committed voice for democracy and freedom. He has been imprisoned, allegedly for treason, because he has said it is a war. He is a British citizen as well as a Russian. Are the British Government doing anything about his case?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the short answer is that yes, we are. We are appalled by the sentence announced today. He has bravely stood up for the rights of so many. This is another example of what Russia does to its own. In this case, there is a read-across for us as the United Kingdom. We see the action taken by Russia today and have seen what is happening with the further distressing stories about the detention of Mr Navalny and others. That, again, shows that it is not just about the war on Ukraine. Russia supresses its own; it is supressing the rights and freedoms of journalists, lawyers and many communities across Russia. If Russia wants to be a valid, recognised member of the international community, the first test will be how it treats its own citizens.
Iran: Toxic Chemical Agents
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend; there is nothing to justify that kind of suppression of girls’ education anywhere in the world, be it in Iran or Afghanistan, which we have talked about. I can share with her that, having spoken specifically with the OIC and the Islamic countries, there is a plan for a UN-sponsored conference within the region immediately after Ramadan. It is likely to be in Kuwait and will focus on the very issue of women and girls’ rights within the context of Islam, so that Islam does not suppress them but promotes them.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too just returned from the UN at the beginning of last week. One issue being raised at the UN now, in its Human Rights Council, is not the genocide convention, although that is being raised a lot too, but the apartheid convention and whether its definitions of race should be expanded to include gender. All the same components of not allowing women to have access to civil society, participation in politics or education can certainly be seen in Afghanistan, and should be called out for happening there because apartheid is a crime—a crime against humanity. The inclusion of gender in that definition is about addressing the serious ways in which women’s non-participation is increasing in such places. We now see that in Iran too. Is the Minister raising the issue of expanding apartheid to include the question of gender?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, what I can say to the noble Baroness on the issue of gender is that, within the context of UN discussions at the moment, there is a very regressive prevailing attitude among certain countries on reopening things which have already been determined, including definitions of gender. This is now causing great concern. We often talk about like-minded countries but there are un-like-minded like-minded countries, if I can phrase it that way, leading the charge so we must remain firm on this. I assure the noble Baroness of my good offices, and those of the FCDO and all colleagues, in ensuring that we keep girls’ and women’s rights very much at the forefront of our international policy.
Raid of BBC Offices in India
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is, of course, correct in her second question. I continue to engage directly with various organisations, and I meet with their representatives regularly. The strength of our relationship allows us to raise these important issues directly with India and to make progress on them. On the first issue the noble Baroness raised, it is important that we continue to engage directly with India. Our talks and discussions are multi-faceted. We are very conscious that the current investigation is ongoing, so I will not comment on any specifics. However, having engaged directly with the Indian authorities and met with the Indian High Commissioner only yesterday to discuss this matter, I understand that the BBC and the Indian authorities are working very closely and looking to resolve the issues as soon as possible.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I know the Minister is very alert to the particular problems journalists experience when Governments do not like the criticisms they face, particularly of human rights abuses. However, this is not the first time India has displayed a sort of retribution policy towards journalists and journalistic entities that are critical of what is happening under the Modi Administration. The Minister talks about our close relationship with India and its enabling frank discussions, but can we genuinely discuss the hostility that those who criticise human rights abuses are experiencing? A young woman journalist, Rana Ayyub, was refused exit to travel to Britain to take part in seminars and a conference about the way in which the Muslim community in India were suffering at the hands of the Government. Just how frank can the Government be with our great friend India?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I recognise equally the important work the noble Baroness continues to champion on media freedom around the world and the protection of journalists. I assure her that the strength of our relationship with India is such that, in my various hats, including as Human Rights Minister, there is a regular dialogue on particular issues and cases. We have constructive exchanges. As I have experienced during my time as Minister responsible, the level and nature of our engagement, and our ability to engage—at times not in a public manner but privately—has unlocked and seen progress. Equally, we expect that kind of scrutiny of ourselves as well. I assure the noble Baroness of my good offices in ensuring that, when issues arise, we raise them directly and constructively with the Indian authorities. At times we will do this in significant private engagements, but those also unlock constructive outcomes.
BBC World Service
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this important debate on the importance of the BBC World Service. I share everyone’s concerns about the impact of cuts on the services, so I thank my friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing the debate. I also pay tribute to our new Member, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. It is rather wonderful to have a teacher who is at the coalface here in the House to remind us of the importance of education and keeping that well funded too.
I put on record my interest as the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. As a human rights lawyer who is in contact with human rights activists and lawyers around the world in straitened circumstances, I go to places where they talk about how important it is to be able to hear what is happening in other parts of the world and to know what good government can look like. An example is the women who have learned so much about women’s rights and that they do not have to live imperilled lives—lives subjected to violence—because of what they hear on the World Service.
I will tell a similar story to that of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I recently evacuated women judges and lawyers from Afghanistan, and, having spent time with them since, I have remarked on how good their English is. They got their English up to speed by listening to the World Service in Pashto, Dari and the other languages in which we have been transmitting in Afghanistan. This is now being closed down by the Taliban. However, in the years after the last removal of the Taliban, these women were learning law, and the World Service provided them with an understanding of both English and the importance of women’s rights.
We know why media freedom matters so much. In the last year up until now, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 63 journalists have been killed across the world and 300 have been detained. We know that media is being crushed in so many countries; the statistics were read out by one of the previous speakers. We know that to report freely on matters of public interest is a crucial indicator of democracy. I am sorry that the Minister has left the Chamber, but I hope he will be told that I think the Government should take some pride in having created a media freedom project when Jeremy Hunt was Foreign Secretary. He did that alongside his equivalent in Canada. The two countries came together to create the Media Freedom Coalition because of their concerns about attacks on media freedom worldwide. The creation of that coalition has really developed—I can tell noble Lords this from my own experience, because the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute runs the secretariat for a high-level legal panel, and we have been doing an incredible amount of work on this. There are now 51 countries in the coalition, and we should remember that this initiative was started by Britain and its Foreign Office.
So why is there this contradiction that, in the very area in which we are supposed to be trying to play a major part in the world on media freedom, we are not protecting one of the major influencers that we have, which is the BBC World Service? The Foreign Office should try to get this right. Like others, I too would like to see a return to the grant in aid that used to be made for the World Service, as it is the only way you can really protect it, given what is currently happening with the funding of the BBC.
One of the things that came out of the Media Freedom Coalition—and for which we had argued—was the creation of emergency visas for journalists at risk. I regret to say that this country has not quite embraced that yet, but many other countries have, including Canada. Recently, we have seen the Czech Republic giving 600 emergency visas to young journalists from Russia who have had to flee because Russia has passed a law which says that, if anybody suggests that there is war taking place with Ukraine, they are subject to imprisonment. We have already seen journalists being imprisoned.
There will be a contradiction if we do not fund the World Service properly. I remind noble Lords that, sometimes, you can know the cost of everything and the value of nothing—that is precisely what we are seeing here.
Anti-lockdown Protest in Shanghai: Arrest and Assault of Edward Lawrence
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right, and I agree with his second point. In the world we live in today, we have seen journalists lead the charge, reporting on conflicts and on violence. I pay tribute to them, and that is why I was proud that the United Kingdom teamed up with others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, to ensure that we have a really focused and laser approach on the issue of suppressing media freedom and the rights of journalists.
On the right reverend Prelate’s point on the UN, of course China is a P5 member and is now looking increasingly at contributions to various UN agencies. It has a particular view of the world that we do not share, and it is important that we rebut that very strongly. We should not just rebut it but present an alternative vision, one in which all freedoms and strengths of human rights are reflected, and make the case strongly to countries currently perceived as fragile and embarking on the road of democracy that pluralist democracies are the best model. Issues of freedom of religion, freedom of media and the rights of journalists are very much part and parcel of that process.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, first I pay tribute to the Minister for his great work on human rights globally. As well as the assault on Edward Lawrence, the BBC’s former China correspondent who reported and exposed truths about Xinjiang’s re-education camps, including about sexual violence against Uighur women, had to be moved to Taiwan following pressure and threats from the Chinese authorities. Was the Foreign Office able to raise that in meetings with the Chinese ambassador in this country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s specific question, the summons was specific to the incident that had taken place. When a summons happens, having led a few myself, they are pretty short, sharp and to the point. I accept the noble Baroness’s broader point about the continued suppression of rights that we continue to see and the challenges we find. Recently, as she will be aware—perhaps this is why I am looking a degree jaded—for the last 48 hours we have had a really intense conference on preventing sexual violence in conflict, with more harrowing accounts from particularly young girls and women but also young men who have to endure this violence around the world.
It was also appropriate, I felt—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in this respect—to ensure we showcase that, when we talk of conflict, we are not talking just of war; we are talking of the suppression of rights in conflict. Often, when wars are perceived to be at an end, conflict continues, and the suppression of vulnerable communities, minorities and, indeed, women and girls, continues. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to update the House on specific issues we pick up and, most importantly, to be informed by the expert opinion in your Lordships’ House.
Evacuations from Afghanistan
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: I lived that crisis, and I continue to live and work on the situation and the response to the evacuation of Afghanistan. Even today, it remains the case that there are many people seeking to leave Afghanistan, particularly the most vulnerable, and it is important that we continue to engage. Certainly, through direct engagement and direct briefings—both at the FCDO and in Parliament—I have ensured that our colleagues across both Houses are fully informed.
On the specific issue of planning, I was engaged on this and, of course, I made my own assessments and provided appropriate briefings to the teams in the FCDO and Her Majesty’s Government. I recall that as late as July, I was at a conference in Uzbekistan where I met the then president, President Ghani; Foreign Minister Atmar; other key partners, including the United States, Turkey and all near neighbours; and international organisations. While it was very clear that the Taliban were gaining ground, no one—I repeat, no one—had made an assessment that this would happen so quickly. I fully accept the premise about when the fall of Kabul happened, on 15 August—indeed, I remember speaking to Foreign Minister Atmar on 11, 13 and 15 August, and then again on 16 August. Even as late as Thursday, with Kabul falling on the Saturday, there was an inward- bound Turkish delegation to Kabul.
We continue to work with partners. Undoubtedly there are lessons that have to be learned and improvements to be made—and, yes, some of those have been implemented in the response to Ukraine. But it is equally important to ensure that we remain vigilant to the current situation, which remains live in Afghanistan, including the humanitarian situation. Therefore, I am proud that, notwithstanding the challenges we face, the Government remain committed to providing support, particularly humanitarian support, to the most vulnerable in Afghanistan.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister knows that I was involved in evacuating a significant number of women lawyers and judges from Afghanistan, and chartered flights to do that. We managed to get six into the United Kingdom. After the military evacuations, only six of those 103 on the lily pad in Athens were allowed to come into Britain. That was possible because women judges here had mentored some of those judges, so they had received prior letters of evacuation—indeed, the Minister himself had provided some of them. We tried to get women at risk into this country afterwards but we did not succeed. How many visas have been given since the end of last August to women from Afghanistan who are at risk?
Hong Kong: Arrests
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts(1 year, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising an important point. On 14 March this year, the current Foreign Secretary issued a statement on the unjustifiable action taken against the UK-based NGO Hong Kong Watch. The action is clearly an attempt to silence those who stand up for human rights in Hong Kong. Attempting to silence voices globally that speak up for freedom and democracy is unacceptable and will never succeed. I will of course convey the noble Baroness’s request back to colleagues in the FCDO.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too roundly condemn the arrest of the five members of the humanitarian support fund. So that the House knows, they have been charged with an offence under the national security law, the new law that has concerned this House in previous debates. The allegation is that they have been in collusion with foreign forces, which means that many of us who would want to be in contact with people are not because we are fearful, as parliamentarians in this country, of in any way putting in difficulty people in Hong Kong who are pro-democracy. I strongly endorse what the right reverend Prelate said about the cardinal, which is a shameful business.
Margaret Ng is a world-renowned rights defender— a great lawyer and barrister, and for 18 years a parliamentarian. As a great democrat, she is celebrated for her work and honoured for it globally. Only in 2019 were she and Martin Lee honoured by the International Bar Association as senior counsel in Hong Kong. Judges from this jurisdiction should no longer be sitting in Hong Kong and I hope that the Government will make a statement about their position. We should also now be calling a halt to, or pause on, trading negotiations with Hong Kong and China until the situation in Hong Kong improves.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, we have repeatedly stated our very strong opposition to the national security law and will continue to voice our concerns about the legislation, which is in clear breach of the joint declaration. I think it is not a coincidence that the four people about whom we are having this urgent debate were arrested. These are people who have stood up for democracy; they are therefore standing up for Hong Kongers as a whole. The authorities there have made a decision, which is clearly unacceptable, to target those leading pro-democracy figures. The right to peaceful protest, which is protected in both the joint declaration and Hong Kong’s Basic Law, is fundamental to Hong Kong’s way of life. We will continue to raise our concerns at every opportunity.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I did not ask my question. Will there be sanctions against—
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a patron of Hong Kong Watch and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong. Is it not outrageous that this has happened to a venerable and holy 90 year-old man, with immense global moral authority, and his fellow trustees? Is it not a terrible indictment of the CCP, illustrating the fear that has led it to criminalise most forms of dissent under the national security law, which was introduced by Carrie Lam and John Lee? I say to the House that as someone who, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has been sanctioned by the CCP, I find it passing strange that Carrie Lam and John Lee have not already been indicted under Magnitsky sanctions, even though the Minister cannot name them as people who will be, given their responsibility for the destruction of “one country, two systems”.
I agree with what was said about the need for an asset audit, which I have previously called for, on CCP apparatchiks who own property assets in London. I hope that the Minister, who has said that he will take this back to the department, will do so as a matter of urgency. Given that the UK trade and economic deals through JETCO were suspended in response to the national security law, and with human rights in freefall, does the Minister agree that there can now be no possible reason to suspend the prohibitions on those trade arrangements?
International Women’s Day and Protecting the Equality of Women in the UK and Internationally
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for leading this important debate. I have great affection for her and it has been wonderful to see her becoming such a strong and powerful voice on the government Benches, the other side from me. It shows how we can all come together positively to talk about issues such as the importance of addressing the ways in which women’s lives are still undermined by misogyny and discrimination and the ways in which women around the world suffer.
I am a lawyer and much of my work is now in the international field. I could have easily made this speech about my work as I see it, day in, day out, on genocide, sexual crimes in conflict and empowering women as parliamentarians. I chair a group of parliamentarians from the MENA region under the Helsinki forum, which helps to address the legislation they would like in their own countries and how they could emulate what happens in other jurisdictions. But today I am going to speak about the domestic situation. I want to ask all in this Room when the last time was that you consciously altered your behaviour, when you were at the bus stop or walking home. A man might struggle to answer that question, but a woman will probably have an example from this week, last week or the week before—or even from going home late last night.
The business of self-safeguarding is built into a woman’s life from an early age. We listen to footsteps. We avoid the shadows. We carry our keys in our hands. We avoid roads that are ill-lit or tree-lined. When I leave this House and go home late at night, I walk up the middle of my road that leads to my house from the Tube station, because I do not want to be close to the dark bushes and shadows on the pavement. As children, girls as young as eight or nine are warned to take care, not to be alone when they are coming back from the park or school, to stay with their friends and to keep to strict timetables. By internalising those messages from our parents, women learn that, unfortunately, there are bad men out there. We hear the message about what they might do to us, which is about sexual violation and the possibility of rape. It is about impregnation. Little girls learn that stuff, and it stays with you for the rest of your life. The lessons that women learn, as they receive that care from their parents and caretakers, is that, if they do not keep to those steps, somehow or other, it will be their fault if something goes wrong. Again, the idea of shame and blame is internalised when women are ill-treated, abused, assaulted or worse. Blame often centres on the victim.
A year ago now, the Scottish Government asked me to form an independent working group to decide whether adding sex to existing hate crime legislation would be an effective way to protect women or whether there should be a stand-alone remedy to deal with misogyny. I was clear from the outset that we do not criminalise thought; it is very important people realise this. There is talk of misogyny being a crime but, fortunately, it cannot be. I hope we hold true to that, because it is the conduct that flows from hate that we address. Modes of thinking, and what happens in that forum internum between our ears, is very precious and has to be protected. Freedom of thought is protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in our human rights conventions and laws. Freedom of thought is protected because that is where our ideas, creativity, imagination and ability to deal with the world’s challenges come from. It has to be protected, but we do not have to protect the ills that come from hatred, which are also harboured in that space. As I am making clear, it is the conduct that flows from hate that we have to address.
Soon after we embarked on our task, Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa were brutally murdered and women up and down the country demanded that something be done. Women were correctly making the link, which I emphasise today, between serious misogynistic crimes such as rape, domestic violence and other serious transgressions that women experience, and the other things they experience which are deemed too low level for police attention. Women were saying that, if you do not deal with the men who rub themselves up against people on the Tube or flash at women in public places —and at little girls; they flash at children from school—or the other ways women experience abuse, whether verbal abuse or touching, groping and so on, unfortunately you then create a normalisation which makes it much more difficult to address the more serious stuff. The crushing weight of those experiences for women cannot be dismissed as too trivial to engage the law.
When I started my legal career, men convicted of rape could often walk out of court with a suspended sentence. Domestic violence was described as six of one and half a dozen of the other. Sexual harassment was laughed at. I have spent a lot of my energy arguing for reform of gender-based law, because it was created from a male perspective—not with any conspiracy in mind, but that was the nature of things. A lot has happened, but not enough has changed. These issues are now being treated much more seriously at policy level, but we are still having difficulty with the outcomes. Outcomes are still poor, and you have to ask why. A lot has changed, but the underlying attitudes within the criminal justice system and society as a whole make it very difficult to secure justice for women.
The questions that my working group addressed in the past year came about by examining the testimony of many women and organisations about the verbal insults, denigration, humiliation, gropings, undermining or patronising behaviour, online trolling and sexual objectification they experience. I have to tell you that, cumulatively, it is a horror story. There is no male experience that is comparable—there really is not. I know young men experience violence on the streets, and so forth, but it is very different. Men do not come out of the pub saying, “Text me when you get home, Charlie”, because getting home might pose a serious problem. But women do it all the time; for young women, this is daily practice. As a result, we have proposed that a new misogyny and criminal justice Act for Scotland should be created that will include a new statutory misogyny aggravation. That is something that we in this House voted for but, unfortunately, it was rejected when it went to the other place.
We really should be looking seriously at what women experience. What we have advocated is law for women, challenging the default position that all law is neutral, because that is not working. Women are being targeted by certain kinds of behaviour, and you need targeted law to deal with it. The default position is that, for example, men can be raped and suffer domestic violence too. However, men are not experiencing stuff such as standing at a bus stop where, if a man comes up and starts engaging with you and you ignore him, you start receiving the foulest torrents of abuse. Men just have no idea what women put up with, including talk of the most salacious and disgusting kind and language that would make your hair curl.
I believe that the internet has created a disinhibition, so that people can say things anonymously. But it is now travelling off the internet and out of social media onto the streets. Young women are receiving this in playgrounds, student unions, bars and clubs—talk of sexual matters of the most explicit, crude and horrible kind. Then, when women reject it, they face discussion of how unattractive, fat and ugly they are and that they therefore do not deserve any sexual interest. They go home feeling wretched and miserable. Is it any wonder that they then do not feel able to ask for equal pay or promotion at work or that they do not take up positions in public life? Is it any wonder that they do not make a success of themselves in many of the areas where they should? This really has to be addressed.
We have advocated that an offence of stirring up hatred against women should be introduced into law, that public misogynistic harassment should be made a crime, and that the issuing of threats or invoking of rape or disfigurement, online and offline, should be criminalised. I say “invoking” because online algorithms often create pile-ons, so that a woman, who might be a Member of Parliament, a journalist or a campaigner, receives a threat of rape in language that is difficult for the police to deal with, because it says something like, “Somebody should rape you”, or, “You deserve to be raped”. They do not say, “I’m coming after you”, they are saying, “Somebody should rape you”, but the terror created in the hearts of women is still the same, because they know that there are people out there who are likely to take up that sort of invitation. Those women start not to go out as often and do not participate in public events in the way they might.
I do not think that older age groups understand what is going on, and I do not think that men have any idea that this goes on. It is really important to look at the stuff we looked at as we took evidence. I do not do social media, and I am glad that I do not—the poor noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is going to receive a whole lot of communications as a result of his speech today—because I take part in too many things that I know will incite the aggressions of folk out there. All I can say is that, when you are required to do it in gathering evidence, it is a shock to the system to see what women in Parliament, women standing for Parliament, women who are journalists, and women who are campaigners are exposed to. The other day I was with the scientists who took part in the Covid matter. Absolutely horrible abuse and insults were poured over them. I heard that the mother of the child who died of a terrible asthmatic attack, who has been campaigning on reducing pollution levels, has also received abuse online. It is unbelievable that any woman who seems to say anything publicly has this happen to her.
I hope that the UK Government will look at the steps being taken in Scotland. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that it is very nice to hear a paean of praise about women, but we need to bring up our boys better so that they have some of the attributes he gave to women—sensitivity, caring and thinking about the other. I am afraid our boys are now seeing this porn that comes up on their phone willy-nilly and presenting it to girls. They think that intimacy looks like that and that that is how you perform sexually. They are introducing that kind of thinking into their own behaviours.
This is serious stuff. I hope the Westminster Government will at some point follow Scotland’s lead. I hope we will make the necessary change. Most decent men—they are here in this House—do not behave like this and are willing to be our allies in creating a gear-shift, but we need to start looking at the perpetrator and get off this business of examining the women. Let us look at the perpetrators who are doing this and start dealing with these crimes differently.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to commend many women in dire situations who exhibit inspirational courage, resourcefulness and resilience. I am also grateful for the opportunity to request that our Government provide urgently needed support for some priority areas.
My small NGO, HART—the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust—was founded to provide aid and advocacy for victims of war, conflict, oppression and/or persecution not reached by major aid organisations for political and/or security reasons. We work with local partners, who use the very limited resources we can provide to make transformational changes for their communities. Time allows only two examples of situations where we are privileged to provide such support: Shan Women’s Action Network—SWAN—in Myanmar’s Shan state; and central belt Nigeria, where massacres by Islamist Fulani militants continue unabated. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for highlighting the very serious situation in South Sudan. We also support partners there. The situation is dire, as the noble Lord has highlighted.
In Burma—I use this name because it is strongly preferred by our in-country partners—in healthcare, there is currently chaos as a result of the military coup and brutal military offensives against civilians.
I have visited Shan state in Burma many times with HART. As we speak today, its people are trapped in protracted conflict, ruthlessly supressed by the military regime. Among the thousands of displaced, 70% are women and children, including pregnant women, teenagers who have just given birth and the elderly. They have fled with minimal possessions. Some have lost their farmland and homes, forced to flee to remote villages or into the jungle, and are suffering from hunger and cold, lacking shelter and medical care.
It is within this context that HART’s inspirational partner, SWAN, continues to operate. SWAN is a female-led organisation dedicated to gender equality and justice. Staff provide life-saving emergency aid, antenatal care, postnatal care and counselling. They also run safe houses for women and girls affected by domestic violence and provide vocational training sessions for practical support in an emergency.
Without organisations such as SWAN, many more female lives would be lost. Yet SWAN receives no support from within Burma and almost no international support, other than from small organisations such as HART.
I also raise another serious issue faced by health workers in many parts of Burma. In a recent Zoom call arranged by the Tropical Health and Education Trust, I was privileged to talk to nurses inside Burma who are desperate for supplies needed to provide healthcare. Many hospitals are now owned by the military, and attacks on civilians have caused many deaths, injuries and massive displacement.
There is an urgent need for aid for healthcare workers who, in spite of personal danger, are striving to provide healthcare to sick and vulnerable people. Many have been arrested, some have been killed and many more are living in dire conditions, working without funding or essential equipment.
I understand and greatly appreciate that the FCDO has been providing some funding, but I also understand that this funding for nurses is going to stop. In reality, it is even more needed as the situation deteriorates and the impact of Covid becomes more serious. I highlight that very serious problem. Any reduction or cessation of UK support for the Burmese nursing profession would create even more massive problems in the provision of healthcare, especially in remote regions. For example, there have been reports of hundreds of thousands of women deprived of care during childbirth which they would have received before the disruption inflicted by the military coup. This has led to a large increase in maternal and infant deaths. Also, effective treatment of most common conditions—for example, dengue and pneumonia—has become almost impossible, leading to great suffering and many more deaths. Therefore, I urge the FCDO to consider, as a matter of urgency, the provision of significant funding for Burmese healthcare professionals and, in particular in this context, nurses.
I also urge implementation of a policy of working with reliable agencies across national borders to reach those in dire need in remote areas who will not receive aid sent to Yangon. For example, in the past DfID, as it was then, provided cross-border life-saving aid to SWAN. DfID also enabled HART to supply life-saving funds to civilians in Chin state suffering from the Mawta famine, caused by the flowering of bamboo, attracting a massive invasion of rats, which devour all food supplies.
I mention those examples to highlight the fact that we have well-established relationships with health professionals in-country and across borders who have demonstrated integrity and professionalism. They are now all desperate for funding to provide life-saving supplies to some of the many thousands of displaced people driven from their homes by the military offensives and living in terrible conditions in remote jungle areas. I therefore make a passionate plea to the Government to provide life-saving cross-border aid to reach such civilians living in dire need. As I said, these people will not receive aid sent to Yangon.
I turn briefly to the middle belt region of Nigeria, where tens of thousands have been killed or wounded in horrific Islamist attacks, and where millions are displaced. Just a few days ago, I returned from a visit to some of the worst affected regions and witnessed the ruins of homes, farmland, food stores, churches and an orphanage—all attacked by Islamist Fulani militia in the past seven months. We heard detailed accounts of children slaughtered, a 98-year-old woman burned alive, and people hacked to death by machetes as they ran from rapid gunfire.
Islamist Fulani militia attacks continue to escalate against predominantly Christian villages in Nigeria’s middle belt. Thousands of killings have occurred since 2009, with countless others suffering life-changing injuries. It is estimated that around 3 million people in the central belt alone have been displaced by the destruction of their homes, insecurity and fear. Many Muslims who refuse to adopt the Islamist ideology of Boko Haram and the Islamist Fulani militia are also killed. According to Christian Solidarity International, at least 615 people were killed in just the first three weeks of this year by Islamist militants. The number has increased greatly since, as the killings continued during our time there.
The perpetration of atrocities also continues. These are a tiny proportion of the examples. A widow called Beatrice, aged 25 and from Plateau state, told us:
“I returned in the morning but everything was burnt. I went to my home and saw my mother and siblings butchered and burnt.”
A young mother called Ruth shared a similar story:
“Fulani militia burnt everything including animals. Hardly anything survived. Ten people were killed … some were burnt, others shot, others macheted.”
Janet, a mother of four children, told me this:
“I found my husband had been killed. I cannot go back to my village. It has been burnt. We are barely managing.”
Although Nigeria represents 2.4% of the world’s population, it contributes to 10% of global deaths for pregnant mothers and has the fourth-highest maternal mortality rate in the world. Its suffering is impossible to fathom.
So, too, is its courage and resilience. I give just one example: during my many visits to central Nigeria, I have been privileged to witness the phenomenal work of Gloria Kwashi, who is married to the equally inspiring Anglican Archbishop Ben Kwashi of Jos. They are both survivors of horrific Islamist violence and torture. However, Gloria’s enormous capacity for resilience and love is shown by her ever-expanding family. In addition to her own children, she and Archbishop Ben have adopted 57 orphans in need of care. She also runs a clinic and established a school for about 400 children, and gets up at 4 o’clock in the morning every day to prepare food for the hundreds of students. It makes me feel very humble.
Yet, like so many others in central Nigeria, she receives no support. Despite the escalating needs in the middle belt region, the United Kingdom does not provide any humanitarian assistance apart from a small interfaith mediation programme. Such a minimal response from the British Government is in no way appropriate to the scale and urgency of the humanitarian and security crises in central Nigeria. HART is responding to desperate requests to help with the provision of education and healthcare by supporting the provision of vehicles that take educational supplies to the displaced people forced to flee to remote areas. It will soon provide similar vehicles to take healthcare to these destitute civilians.
Therefore, while I commend the Government on their expressions of commitment to empower women and girls and prevent violence against them, I urge the Minister no longer to turn a deaf ear to the massive suffering of victims of violence in Burma’s ethnic states and Nigeria’s middle belt. There is an urgent need for an immediate humanitarian response to enable women to receive the aid they need and to maintain the inspirational contributions of the many valiant women who are working to alleviate suffering and promote human rights, freedom, democracy and peace. They are an inspiration and make me feel very humble.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Hear, hear. First, I apologise to the Committee for my seated comments to my noble friend Lord Young. I want to say something to the noble Lords, Lord Farmer, Lord Young and Lord Clement-Jones, who all meant very well by what they said—and I think we could all agree about the need for careful and respectful debate, and not taking for granted or assuming what people might think or what they might be saying. The only thing that I would say to them is that I have been a feminist all my life. One thing that you learn as a feminist, and as someone who has been active in women’s politics, is that you need to be in control of the battles that you fight. I say to them that it is great that they feel as strongly as they do, and please support me and my feminist friends in any way you can, but actually the fight is ours.
I intend to make a speech that is about breaking the bias and about ending the prejudice and discrimination that women face on a daily basis in 2022. As other noble Lords have said, of course, who could not be absolutely choked up when we heard little Gabriella saying “Mummy” to her mummy? Goodness me, is it not wonderful that that family is reunited? I pay tribute to my honourable friend Tulip Siddiq, the MP for that family. I also wish everybody a happy St Patrick’s Day.
I thank the Minister for getting us this debate because, like other noble Lords, I am sure that she will agree that it deserves to be in the main Chamber; so I will just ask her to put it in the diaries of the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip for next year and mount a campaign—one that we will all join her in—to make sure that we get the debate that we want on the special day on which we want it. I did, however, visit Central England Co-op’s wonderful International Women’s Day debate at the National Memorial Arboretum last week, and spent a very lovely morning there. It was not New York, but it was actually a great event. My job there was to speak about bias in my life and lessons to be learned, so I thought I might mention a few biases that I have known and experienced.
The first example I want to mention involves my late mum, Jean Thornton, the eldest of 11 children in a working-class family in Batley and Spen. I cannot remember a time in my life when I was not aware that my mum was top of her class in her primary school. She was very ill and failed to be able to take her 11-plus exams, and despite the fact that her teachers were really very keen that she should take it, her family did not arrange for her to re-sit it, but they did send her brother to the grammar school the following year and could not afford two sets of uniforms. She felt that missed opportunity literally all her life, which is why I can remember it: I have always known this story about my mum missing that opportunity and suffering from that bias.
Even though she made a great success of her working life and her public life and had seven children of her own, it did make her very ambitious for us, her six daughters. I am the eldest of seven. When the head teacher suggested—and it has to be said that I was definitely a troublesome, campaigning sixth-former—that I might not be university material, and should settle for a teacher-training college, I was not actually sure that he would escape with his life. I did, indeed, head to the LSE.
When I was in my early 30s, in the 1980s, I decided to take a pop at getting selected as a parliamentary candidate in Bradford, when one of our Labour MPs had died. Those of you who have subjected yourself to the ordeal of trying to be selected to fight a parliamentary seat will know that you have to attend a lot of meetings to sell yourself to the members of the local party. However, two of the meetings for this parliamentary selection were held in local working men’s clubs in Bradford, and I, as a woman, could not enter. I had to be signed in and escorted through the club; so while I watched all the other candidates, who were all men, waltz into the selection meeting, I had to wait until the secretary came to sign me in and escort me to the meeting.
At the time, I probably did what most of the women here would have done: I just got on with it. I made the best speech that I could and, needless to say, I did not get selected. It did, however, harden me, and it gave me a campaigning zeal to change the Labour Party selection rules and to ensure that there would be a great pipeline of women ready to stand for election. So in 1997 we saw the 100-plus Labour women, and now more than half of our Parliamentary Labour Party are women.
We have all experienced bias, be it minor but annoying. For example, I am fairly sure that when I came to your Lordships’ House in 1998, Conservative women here in the House did not wear trousers. I do not know if there was a rule or what, but it simply was not done.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Yes, it was the same in the courts. In 1998, women Peers had two little toilets that were by the Chamber. The men still had the splendid Victorian ones, but we gained the one just around the corner within a few years.
Then, of course, the bias goes to the downright dangerous and discriminatory. I have an admiration for the organisation Pregnant Then Screwed. This is partly because, when I was pregnant with my first child, I was without doubt the most senior person in the whole co-operative movement to have ever taken maternity leave; I was not that senior, actually. The chair of the committee for which I worked simply thought that I was being awkward and unco-operative by not saying exactly when I would return to work after my baby was born. Today, I would have known to take out a complaint and have them in a tribunal as quick as you like, but I did not know and so just had not as happy a time during my pregnancy as I should have had.
In the medical and health world where I work, there is still a clinical bias whereby medicines and devices are designed for and tested on men. This is changing but, of course, it is potentially dangerous and certainly can be very uncomfortable. The bias, otherwise known as misogynism, in our police, which has been mentioned already, has appalling consequences for both individual women and their treatment. We know about Sarah Everard but, more recently, a young girl was strip-searched at her school, including the removal of her sanitary wear, by two police officers. She was traumatised by her treatment, which took place without her mother or an adult present.
We have the lowest rape convictions for an age, as noble Lords have mentioned. As Dame Vera Baird said, 1.5% of rape cases reach court, meaning that 98% do not. We have long argued for the inclusion of domestic abuse and sexual offences in the definition of “serious violence”. We argued for violence against women and girls to be a strategic policing issue, given the same prominence as terrorism and organised crime. We argued for safeguards to be set out on the extraction of data from victims’ phones. We argued for a lifting of the limit for prosecution of common assault or battery in domestic abuse cases. We argued for a review into spiking, so that we can get to the bottom of this appalling practice. None of these measures were included in the Government’s original Bill. They are all there as a result of the campaigning work of women’s organisations, the Labour Party and, I have to say, the Liberal Democrats and other Members of your Lordships’ House. We have changed the law for women for the better. The Government have been asked some pertinent questions by my noble friend Lady Kennedy about ensuring that misogyny is made a hate crime and publishing a perpetrator strategy at the end of the month, as the Domestic Abuse Act requires. The Government must adopt these measures.
Turning to health, the area in which I work, we need the women’s health strategy to be produced. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has now said that it will be. The UK has been found to have the largest female health gap in the G20 and the 12th-largest globally. Research has shown a gender health gap in the UK where many women receive poorer healthcare than men and are routinely misunderstood, mistreated and misdiagnosed. There is still a great deal of work to do.
I want briefly to turn to the international issues mentioned by several noble Lords. I just want to add my voice and say this: what a short-sighted, counter- productive decision it was to reduce funding for women and girls across the world at every single level. This was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, my noble friend Lady Armstrong—virtually everybody. We need to return the funding for women and girls to its pre-2020 level; this requires the return of the £1.9 billion in programming. We need it now. We cannot afford not to find it.
I want to mention two other issues. One is to do with bias and tone. Both the current Secretary of State for Health and his predecessor have called out my honourable colleague Rosena Allin-Khan at the Dispatch Box because they did not appreciate her tone. That makes me quite angry because when men do that and say to women, “You’re not using the right tone, my dear”, what they are actually saying is, “You shouldn’t be speaking at all. Please speak only with our permission”. I place that on the table but, do not worry, my honourable friend Rosena is absolutely aware what is happening: those men are saying that she should not be speaking.
Finally, the Labour Party is the party of equality. We are the party of the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equality Act. We understand that our society, our economy and our country are poorer if women cannot play their full part. Women hold the key to a stronger economy. My noble friend Lord Sikka was quite right and I have been asking, all the time I have been in the House, for gender impact assessments. We have been asking for them for many years, so I plead with the Minister to add that to her to-do list.
International Women’s Day is always a bittersweet moment. It celebrates how far we have come, which is a great distance—certainly a great distance in the time I have been in your Lordships’ House—but also notes, with regret, how far we still have to go. It is a chance to recommit ourselves to the struggle for women, the girls of today, and our daughters and granddaughters of tomorrow. Women across the country and the world deserve security, prosperity and respect. We think a Labour Government would give them that but, for as long as we are still on these Benches, we will push the Government to deliver it.
Afghanistan (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. She is one of the wise women of this House. I welcome the report and express my regret that we are debating it a year after it was produced. It was indeed prescient; if only some of the warnings contained in it had been taken on board.
Only a month after the report was produced, two Supreme Court judges were assassinated in Kabul: Justice Zakia Herawi and Justice Qadria Yasini. We should remember their names. I knew Qadria Yasini; in fact, two of her sons were included in the evacuations conducted by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, of which I am the director. We took out 103 women judges and prosecutors as well as some others, including a couple of journalists and two Members of Parliament. We took out those boys, then aged 17 and 19, too. They are still sitting in Athens, waiting on the lily pad that was secured as a temporary place for us to land the planes we chartered. Let me tell you, it was never our plan to charter airplanes; that has not been part of my legal practice over the years. However, when judges contacted us, desperate and in mortal danger—let there be no doubt that they were in mortal danger—we felt that we had to do something.
I did not immediately think of chartering planes. I sought to find who was getting people out. In fact, Christians were being evacuated by American evangelical charities. I wanted to know whether some of my women judges could be put in the back of the planes, but of course there was no room at the inn. There were no places on the planes but they did give put us contact with charter companies. This meant that I discovered the great price there was on evacuations, and I had to fundraise the money to get these women prosecutors and judges out.
What is special about the women prosecutors and judges, you may well ask me? Is this about evacuating the great privileged and professional middle classes? These women were educated at law schools in the period after the Taliban were last ousted. Many of them are still comparatively young women by our judges’ standards; we are talking not about Brenda Hale here—the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale—but about women who are still in their 30s and early 40s, with young children. They answered a call which we, of course, wanted them to answer. We wanted to see a different kind of judiciary, which reflected the whole of their society, and encouraged that. They took up the challenge and became judges in courts that were dealing with the narcotics that have troubled the cities in our own countries. They were running the courts that dealt with terrorists who were blowing up our soldiers with home-made bombs. They were dealing with some of the most challenging cases that we wanted to see dealt with properly by those courts.
All the way through the years before the re-arrival of the Taliban in Kabul these women were receiving threats, which arrived at the courts. They have not stopped receiving threats for years. Then in February, nearly a year ago now, two of their most senior women colleagues were assassinated and the terror that ran through their circles was huge. They knew it was a warning. Those women were shot: Zakia through the forehead and Qadria through the heart. The head and the heart—that is what those women brought to their professional practices.
The prosecutors too, who were prosecuting cases of violence against women, trafficking, forced marriage, child marriage and rape, were all on the kill lists of the Taliban as soon as the Taliban were released from prison. Let us be in no doubt as to the threat these women are facing. There are still women making contact with me and telling me of the danger that they face. They are living in basements or have moved to other houses. They move on a regular basis because of their fear; their relatives are also in fear.
What do I say in answer to the Home Office on this? When I asked for visas for some of the people who are still there—young prosecutors who are undoubtedly at the top of the list—I was told: “But you see, there’s a problem. Even if there is proof of this, we can’t give visas to people in Afghanistan because we have no embassy there, so they can’t be measured for biometrics. You can’t get a visa if you can’t be biometrically tested, and we can’t do that because we don’t have an embassy to do it, therefore there are no visas”. Tell me, then, the safe routes for how you get to the United Kingdom.
Then a suggestion was made, and I have learned a lot about how to evacuate people from Afghanistan. I know now about air traffic control and landing rights. I know all about how you manage to get from A to B with security, and about safe houses. So when I say, “We could bring out another planeload of the most desperate of the women, who need help now”, I am told, “Oh no—we can’t do that because we might be sued”. I said: “Who by? Who do you think is going to sue you?” There is the anxiety that there might be risks here and we would not want to have blood on our hands. Let me tell you: we are going to have blood on our hands. I am afraid that the answers I have been given so far have not been very heartening.
I would not have been able to do this without the incredible generosity of many people. I know that some noble Lords donated to the fundraising I conducted. I thank them for the way they helped and encouraged me. Sir Michael Hintze, an Australian philanthropist who has dual nationality and lives and works here in the United Kingdom, took up the lion’s share of paying the costs of some of these flights. I was helped by other people, some of whom do not want their names to be mentioned because they “do a mitzvah”, as Jewish people would say, quietly and without recognition. But that should not be necessary. What happened to states doing these things?
At the end of all this, I want to ask: what are we doing about visas for people to get out? With my little team at the International Bar Association and with Sir Charles Hoare, who is a great humanitarian, I have managed to get resettlement for a number of these women around the world. Australia is taking 20. I phoned up the former President of Ireland, who happened to study at the same time as me, and we got people into Ireland, which has already taken 10. As far as I can count, we have got only nine women judges into the UK so far. Five of them got out in the military evacuation and four have been taken from my group, who have been sitting in Athens in this temporary lily pad. They have been there for five months. I reiterate what others have said: why have we not done better?
I will ask about money. We talked about corruption in aid that was paid into Dubai to people who were supposed to be legitimate Governments. Why do we not talk to Dubai about the amount of money that was hived off and sits in bank accounts in Dubai? Transparency International has documented it. We should freeze some of those assets.
If I secured more funding for another flight, will the Foreign Office and the Home Office help us secure landing rights here in United Kingdom for another plane of perhaps 30 judges, lawyers, prosecutors, journalists and human rights workers fleeing for their lives? If I get 30 of them and their families, will Britain accept them?
Even as we speak, negotiations are taking place in Oslo with the Taliban. Are we talking about the rights of women? Alex Crawford interviewed Abdul Qahar Balkhi on Sky News earlier today, who said that
“we do not threaten women … ever … we have a lot of respect for women”.
I have heard abusers in this country say how much they respect women, but it does not stop the terrible levels of abuse. We know these people abuse and want to silence women. They were busy today in the media saying that it was the military abusing women over the last 20 years. The dishonesty is clear. All I am saying is that the women who made a stand and did a great deal of public service that we and the people of Afghanistan benefited from are still in fear. We have not stood up and done well enough yet. I hope we can do more.