Hate Crime Against the LGBT+ Community

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of hate crime against the LGBT+ community.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I sincerely thank all colleagues present for attending today’s debate. I draw attention to my membership of the all-party parliamentary group on global LGBT+ rights, my role as co-chair of the LGBT+ parliamentary Labour party and, sadly, my own experience as a victim of LGBT+ hate crime.

I begin by thanking Stonewall, Galop and many other national organisations that speak up on these issues. Locally, in my constituency, I think of groups such as Pride Cymru and Glitter Cymru. I also want to mention the LGBT+ Safe Spaces venues, from our clubs and pubs to inclusive religious venues, and places such as the Queer Emporium in Cardiff, not to mention their brave security staff and managers, for all they do to keep our communities safe and welcome.

The fact is that, despite all the legal progress we have made in this country and the rapidly changing and welcome debate, particularly among younger generations, this is a perilous and profoundly uncertain time for the LGBT+ community in the UK. I would never seek to downplay the even worse threats of death and violence, let alone the absence of basic legal rights in many other contexts globally, but I can genuinely say that we are not in a good place here and things are getting worse.

That view is not just anecdotal. It is borne out by clear evidence and trends that I will come on to, and is sadly borne out by the stark, horrific reality that we saw in the homophobic murder of kind, compassionate Dr Gary Jenkins in my city of Cardiff in 2021. We can all think back to the horrors of the Admiral Duncan bombing in 1999 and the Stephen Port murders in 2014 to 2015 in east London, and all the failures around how that case was handled.

We are all aware of ongoing and more recent incidents, but I am conscious of the House sub judice rule and I will, therefore, refrain from commenting on a number of them. I know that colleagues will want to take particular care on that matter.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. Unfortunately, I cannot stay for the debate; I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that I have a prior appointment. As someone interested in human rights issues, I want to put on the record my condemnation of those who carry out hate crimes against anybody, wherever that happens. I fully support what the hon. Gentleman is putting forward, which I want to put on the record.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Member for his support, which is genuinely welcome. The cross-party group that we have here today reflects the wide concern across the House at recently released statistics.

I will refer to my own experiences, which are sadly all too common for others. I have been assaulted with a homophobic element in my own constituency in broad daylight. I have been told online by somebody that he would sort me and my issues out while I was at football, while posting pictures of me dressed up at Pride. I have been called a “faggot” while walking along Queen Street in Cardiff. Like many other members of the community, I have worried whether it is safe to kiss my boyfriend or hold his hand on the bus or the tube. Even as a parliamentarian on an overseas trip, I was told to my face that people like me are detested.

In National Hate Crime Awareness Week, rather than belittling the impact of hate crime or suggesting that it is a “woke” irrelevance, it is critical that we look into the impact that attacks are having on the community, across the country, against people who just want to love who they love, live as themselves and get on with their daily lives. In the UK in 2023, the place of LGBT+ people in society, and their safety and wellbeing—is it really such a difficult thing to ask?—simply should not be contested notions, be up for debate or, worse, lead to violence, intimidation or assault; and yet here we are.

Freedom of Religion and Belief

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

We have to have a robust, honest and candid dialogue with our closest friends and allies. Indeed, a number of those have already been mentioned, and I will go on to mention a number of them myself. It is incumbent on us to have those conversations when there are clear concerns. The hon. Gentleman mentioned several countries, but there are a number of democracies around the world where we see these issues.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), there are ways of doing this; I indicated that in my speech, as did others. We can tie human rights and freedom of religious belief in with aid. We give India and Pakistan substantial aid, as we do other parts of the world. If we make that conditional, we can effect some change.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, there have always been, as far as I understand it, partnership principles in giving UK official development assistance. It is important that all those are considered when we engage with countries, even those that are friends and allies or might be rightly receiving assistance for other reasons. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom identified 16 countries of particular concern in 2023 and recommended 11 countries for a special watchlist. In 10 countries, the crime of apostasy is potentially punishable by death in all or part of the state, and there are seven countries where blasphemy potentially carries the same sentence.

We have heard about persecution of lots of different faiths. It will be too difficult to do justice to all of them, but let me highlight a few instances. On persecution against Christians, according to Open Doors, more than 360 million Christians worldwide suffer high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith. That is a staggering one in seven believers. In Sudan, the ongoing political unrest has led to an intensification of anti-Christian sentiment. We have seen a horrific situation in Afghanistan under the Taliban, with the Christians who remain in the country pushed into hiding; those who are discovered could face the penalty of death. We have seen the expulsion from Nicaragua of the Missionaries of Charity, founded by St Teresa of Calcutta, and the religious of the Cross of the Sacred Heart of Jesus without due process.

In Egypt, there are reports that authorities have continued to prosecute and imprison Christians and other religious minorities. Jihadist violence continues to wreak havoc and horror in northern Nigeria, where a horrific attack in June last year saw 41 people killed at the St Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Owo. In Myanmar, pastor Hkalam Samson remains in prison for his religious beliefs. The sad fact is that I could go on and on, but there is simply not enough time to speak to the number of situations where Christians face persecution.

On the persecution of Jews, antisemitism is utterly abhorrent and I know that all hon. Members will condemn it in all its manifestations. The most recent report from the special rapporteur, in 2019, stated clearly that

“in many States antisemitic harassment is significantly underreported. Nevertheless, reports of hostility, discrimination and violence motivated by antisemitism have increased in many parts of the world.”

Eighty-five per cent of respondents

“felt that antisemitism was a serious problem in their respective countries, 34 per cent reported that they avoided visiting Jewish events or sites because of safety concerns, and 38 per cent had considered emigrating because they did not feel safe as Jews.”

The UK has a critical role to play both at home and abroad, whether on the desecration of cemeteries, on attacks and killings at synagogues or on the daily persecution and discrimination that so many Jewish people face around the world.

On the persecution of Muslims, the appalling treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang and of the Rohingya in Myanmar are high-profile cases, but we have seen that in many other places. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are all rich and diverse societies, but we must all continue to raise concerns about religious freedom wherever necessary and urge the leadership of those countries to ensure that the right to freedom of religion is fully respected, whoever happens to be in the minority. We unequivocally condemn recent incidents of Koran burning and other attacks on Muslim communities. Indeed, I have stood alongside Muslim communities in my own constituency when they have faced violence and intimidation from the far right and neo-Nazis, with swastikas sprayed in their communities and acts of violence towards mosques and Muslims in my local area.

We also see violence against Hindus. In 2020, Dipti Rani Das, a teenager from the Hindu minority in Bangladesh, was arrested for a Facebook post, taken to a detention facility and held for 16 months. She faced up to seven years in jail for “hurting religious sentiment”. Whatever the rights and wrongs of her post, that is an extraordinarily draconian approach to take to an under-age individual. Amnesty and others successfully campaigned for her eventual release, but huge concerns remain.

Of course, there is also persecution of Sikhs. We saw a horrific assault on two Sikh businessmen in Peshawar, Pakistan, in May 2022. Afghanistan, under Taliban rule, has seen the near extinction of the Sikh community, which goes back to the 15th century. Until the 1980s, there was a vibrant community of 300,000 Sikhs, who played a critical role in the economy. It is now believed that their number is down to 200 people in hiding, as many have fled the brutality of the Taliban. Sadly, we know that humanists, atheists and those with no religious beliefs also face continued persecution, and we have discussed many such cases in the House.

I want to ask the Minister a few specific questions, given the horrific record that we have heard about today. First, it was good to see that the G20 communiqué specifically highlighted UN General Assembly resolution 318, particularly its

“commitment to promote respect for religious and cultural diversity, dialogue and tolerance”,

but can the Minister outline why this issue did not feature in the G7’s communiqué and whether the UK, as a leading member of the G7, the Security Council and other bodies, will ensure that we use all forums to highlight these issues?

Secondly, what steps are being taken more broadly to ensure that freedom of religion is prioritised internally? We have heard different suggestions about how that might be done, particularly in our bilateral conversations with friends and allies. We need to ensure that freedom of religion is central to our diplomatic and economic engagement.

Finally, could the Minister explain how the Government continue to engage with diaspora, civil society and religious communities here in the UK on setting priorities? They often have critical insight and intelligence about what is happening and the experiences of those within their faith communities, and it is critical that the Government engage with them.

I am privileged to represent a constituency with huge religious diversity. At the last count, I think I had eight mosques, three Hindu temples, a Sikh gurdwara and a Jewish synagogue. There is every type of Christianity, from Greek Orthodox through to Nigerian Pentecostal, Catholic, protestant—you name it. One of my predecessors, who is a Member of the Senedd, is a humanist celebrant. Cardiff South and Penarth is a place of huge religious diversity and tolerance, going back to our history as a port city, and I am really proud of some of the interfaith work that goes on. When we have had difficulties and there have been threats to people, the community has responded. Sadly, however, we do not see that in so many situations and countries around the world. The UK has a critical role to play, and I hope to hear from the Minister what steps we are taking to ensure that we uphold the UN declaration and the fundamental principles that we have all espoused today.

UK Relations with Qatar

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 10th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate. He is a long-time advocate of the importance of the United Kingdom’s relationship with Qatar, not least in his ongoing role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group, although I will point out to him that Scotland’s premier university is, of course, St Andrews. [Laughter.]

I also thank the hon. Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), and the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), some of whom are no longer in their place, as well as the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith).

The hon. Member for Southend West is not in his place, but I would mention that normally after visits people are given a book, a cake or a bottle of wine. To get camels is quite extraordinary and something I shall not forget.

British relationships with Qatar go back more than 100 years, prior to, during and after the protectorate period of the early and mid-20th century. Potentially, that relationship has deep and significant diplomatic, security and economic benefits for the people of Qatar and the people of the UK—and, indeed, the people of Wales—as well as for the region. As an example of that partnership, I had the pleasure of studying alongside representatives of Qatar at the Royal College of Defence Studies a few years ago. We enjoy crucial co-operation, not least with respect to the Royal Air Force, and indeed other allied air forces, at the Al Udeid airbase.

It would be remiss of me not to reflect on the particularly special relationship between Qatar and Wales, not least through the air link with Qatar Airways, facilitated by the Welsh Government and our Economy Minister Ken Skates, which helped to connect Cardiff international airport directly to the world. That link is suspended because of the pandemic and low winter demand, but I hope that as things improve into the spring, we can re-establish that important route, given the aspirations we have heard about for Wales in relation to the 2022 World cup.

We also heard about a crucial link with the South Hook LNG terminal. I had the pleasure of visiting that facility, on a visit with the Welsh Affairs Committee when I was first elected. It was fascinating, given the critical role that the terminal plays in the diversity of our energy supply in the UK. Will the Minister reflect on how the relationship is developing, particularly ahead of next year’s commitments that we need to make on climate change and moving away from fossil fuels? How he perceives the transition we must make, which is being implemented in our country at such facilities and in Qatar, is critical.

We have heard lots about security and co-operation, and earlier this year the Royal Air Force and Qatar Emiri air force Typhoon squadron, No. 12 Squadron, commenced flying—the joint squadron that we heard about. We also heard about the acquisition by Qatar of the nine Hawk aircraft, which could lead to a new squadron. Given the ongoing threat posed by Daesh and other extremist groups in the immediate and near region, joint defence and security improvements are significant steps in protecting security in the region. That is reflected in our relationships in many other key locations, including the Duqm port in Oman and the Royal Navy facility we are developing there.

We have heard about crucial economic co-operation. We have an ever-deepening economic relationship, and since 2017 the UK has been one of the most significant, if not the most significant, destinations for Qatari investment—£35 billion-worth. Significant announcements were made at the Qatar-UK business forum in March 2017. The UK’s important wider diplomatic relationships with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Egypt, among others, mean that it can play a critical role with international partners such as the United States, Kuwait and others to work to ease the ongoing diplomatic crisis, which has lasted three and a half years. I would appreciate—I am sure other Members have asked for this as well—an update on how the Minister sees the dispute, how he sees it being resolved and what role the UK Government are playing in facilitating candid conversation.

Given the complexity of the political and security situation in the Gulf and the wider middle east, we must always consider the implications of our engagement, particularly when it comes to military and security arrangements. There are attempts to influence policy and behaviour by the larger powers in the region, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and we must always be conscious of that. Given the ongoing conflict in Yemen, for example, and the devastating humanitarian disaster, will the Minister give us his latest assessment of Qatar and other regional powers in relation to that conflict, and say what we are doing to resolve it? Indeed, what are the prospects for wider peace within the region, which is something I would hope for? We have seen a number of peace deals recently with Israel, so how does the Minister see Qatari-Israeli relationships?

This has been mentioned in a number of speeches, but it is critical today to recognise international Human Rights Day. Today is the anniversary of the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights on 10 December 1948. A former Labour MP and trade unionist, Charles Dukes, later Lord Dukeston, played a critical role in drafting that document, although tragically he died before its adoption. Britain was one of the key players that insisted that a moral principle on human rights was not enough, but that legal force and action were needed to defend basic human dignity worldwide. As I have said on many occasions, I regret that some of the Government’s recent actions have undermined those commitments on the global stage and caused the loss of our influence in some key UN human rights bodies and others. That is after a proud tradition of defending human rights and the rule of law globally under Governments of multiple colours in the last few decades.

On the comments of the hon. Member for Thurrock, it is not about being holier than thou. It is about accepting that, because the dignity and rights of human beings are universal, when we have frank and friendly relationships with countries such as Qatar, we use those relationships to be candid.

[Jim Shannon]

Surely one of the good things about having the relationship that the UK has with Qatar is that a good friend can be critical and constructive, and can say things in a way that the person can take on board. People do it with me; I do it with others. It can be constructive.

[Stephen Doughty]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I agree with.

The UK can never turn a blind eye to those challenges. Our relationship should be based on mutual respect for human rights, inclusive democracy and the rule of law. That particularly affects the issue of workers’ rights. We have heard about the World cup. Since Qatar bid successfully to stage the World cup, there have been serious, ongoing allegations of exploitation and labour abuse of millions of men and women, mostly from Asian and African countries, who migrated to Qatar for work. In 2013, a shocking report from the International Trade Union Confederation estimated that up to 1,200 people may have died, mainly poor migrant workers from Nepal and India. Indeed, Amnesty International reported in March that hundreds of migrant workers were rounded up and detained by police across Doha for the stated purpose of covid testing, only to find themselves forced on to planes and sent back to their country of origin. That is obviously of deep concern. What assessment has the Minister made of those allegations?

It is important to recognise that there have been substantial changes since the partnership with the ILO in 2017, such as the regulation of the employment of domestic workers, a partial abolition of the exit permit, a mandatory minimum wage, a Government-run shelter for survivors of abuse, and the significant labour reforms passed on 8 September to deal with the abusive kafala system. Those are all important, but there is still a significant distance to travel. Will the Minister comment on how he sees those developments progressing?

There are also significant concerns about the Qatari legal system. There are allegations of arbitrary travel bans and detentions, such as the cases of Najeeb Mohamed al-Nuaimi and Mohammed Yusuf al-Sulaiti. Have those been raised by the UK Government with counterparts in Doha?

We heard about the situation for women and girls. Unfortunately, despite some progress, there are still significant disadvantages and inequalities for women and girls in Qatar, including within marriages and within families, and, of course, with respect to domestic violence and shocking sexual violence. We have also heard about the situation for the LGBT+ community with the law as it stands. That has implications. I am a Welsh football fan. I am also a gay football fan. I would love to be able to travel to see Wales in a World cup, but I would have to make those considerations before I could make that sort of trip. I hope that we can ensure that the World cup is an open and welcoming environment for all fans, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity.

Indeed, there are minority groups within Qatar as well, including the al-Ghufran clan of the al-Murrah tribe, which have ongoing issues around statelessness. Can the Minister comment on that? There is also the situation regarding the death penalty. I accept that Qatar has not carried out death sentences in recent times, which is welcome, and a contrast to President Trump fast-forwarding executions in his remaining days in office—what an absolutely shocking situation. What progress have we made working with the Qatari Government on abolishing the death penalty?

We have also heard about the planned elections to the Shura Council. I hope that those go ahead. Similar promises have not been fulfilled in the past, so I hope they are this time. Can the Minister provide us with an update on that?

In an increasingly unstable world, with challenges of terrorism, conflict, climate change, and, of course, the pandemic and economic contraction, the UK’s relationships with countries around the world, particularly in the Gulf, are vital for the security and safety of the British people and the global community. Qatar can and should be a valued partner in the region, but close friendships come with the responsibility to be honest and frank, and to seek constructive change. I hope that the UK Government’s engagement with Qatar will continue to be productive and friendly in that vein.

Business of the House

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that these are exceptional circumstances. The people have agreed through the referendum that they want to leave the European Union, and the Government understand and acknowledge that the people want the process for that to be out by 31 March. As that is the case, the logistical issues in relation to new clauses and amendments must be resolved in a way that allows the will of the people to be heard in this Parliament. We cannot ignore that, and with great respect to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, the prerogative of Parliament is not to ignore the view of the people but to acknowledge the voice given to them through the referendum.

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not necessarily disagree with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman says. I know that he, as an assiduous contributor to debates in this House, including on amendments and parliamentary procedure, would welcome proper scrutiny. Whether or not we agree on the result of the referendum or about how to take the process forward, he would agree with me about the importance of this place, its processes and the way in which we debate such matters.

It is important to understand that the order in which amendments are tabled in this place can significantly affect the ability to speak on them, particularly when the time to debate them is curtailed; it also affects which amendments we can vote on. I would be deeply concerned if we started to see procedural chicanery by the Government—by the Whips and others—and attempts to curtail debate and to prevent the reasonable discussion of matters in this House. [Interruption.] A Government Whip is chuntering already.

We all understand the result of the referendum and we all have different views on it, but we have many concerns about how the process is being undertaken. I believe that the Prime Minister has already shown a great deal of contempt for this House by not turning up to explain herself and answer questions. The Government have been forced into a corner about publishing a White Paper. They now appear to be tinkering with the proceedings of this place, and to be rushing headlong into the process without allowing proper and adequate scrutiny.

I raise these issues not as an attempt to frustrate or stop the process—I will not oppose the motion—but because I want the public, including my constituents, to understand that there are those in the House who often abuse its procedures to prevent reasonable scrutiny and to prevent votes. I would be deeply concerned if that were to continue during the next few weeks. We have already seen a habit formed by this Government and we have already seen their direction of travel, but I sincerely hope it stops right now, so that we can have proper debate and scrutiny.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely. That is the point that has come out in all the debates.

We have also seen protections for those who disagree. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate seems happy with those. I felt that protection already existed, but if the additional protections please other people and make them feel more secure, that can only be a good thing. The comments of Baroness Stowell were important when she said that the amendments that were agreed do not allow hate speech. There are two sides to this. We will protect the rights of people who disagree in a calm and respectful manner, but when that steps over into a different type of speech, which unfortunately has happened in some of the public debate, that is entirely unacceptable.

We have spoken about humanist marriages and I have stated my strong support for those to be able to go ahead. I am a person of faith, but I have seen how important humanist marriages are. I have had many representations from humanists in my constituency. As I have mentioned before, the former Assembly Member for my constituency is a humanist celebrant. I know how many people who want to take part in those ceremonies are ready to come forward—[Interruption.] I cannot quite hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is saying from a sedentary position but I am sure it is something supportive. I am glad that the door has been left open. I hope the review will take place. Other useful clarifications were made during that debate in the other place.

It is important to underline again that the protections that come through this set of amendments are all in addition to existing ones in the Bill. A great deal of thought went into the Bill and I commend the Government for that and for respecting and trying to understand the concerns that had legitimately been expressed, which have been answered comprehensively. I am glad that the protections provided by the amendments are on top of the protections in the original text and in other legislation such as the Equality Act 2010. These things were all carefully considered long before I came into this place. It is important that we recognise that. It is not as though there was some sort of free-for-all or the ability to abuse various circumstances.

In conclusion, the Lords amendments are the result of detailed, technical and careful consideration, which is the opposite of some of the claims that have been made. Ultimately, they reflect the will of Members in both Houses to right an injustice in the laws of our land. It is about putting in place the final piece of the equality jigsaw referred to by Stonewall and other organisations. I am very glad that we have reached this stage. As other hon. Members have commented, it reflects a wider change that has taken place in public attitudes. Of the many surveys that have taken place, one shows that 80% of people under the age of 50 welcome the changes and that three in every five people with faith also want them to go through. I think that reflects how far we have come, both in the public and in both Houses.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman says that three in every five people with faith support these changes, but that is not what we heard in Committee, when a number of people from different religious organisations came to us, and they referred to having memberships in the hundreds of thousands, and perhaps even half a million. I am very interested to hear where he got the figure of three in every five.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—