| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.15 pm
I was appalled by what I saw and by what I learnt at first hand. I met Pakistani Christians in prison who knew full well that they might be murdered before their trial, as others had been. I met Christians in hiding and awaiting trial who knew full well that, even if they were acquitted, they faced assassination on the streets of Pakistan, as others had. I met the families of murdered Christians who were also in hiding because of death threats against them. I visited a Christian village which had been attacked by a frenzied Islamic mob. Several houses had been burnt down and villagers had been raped.
One of the reasons why Christians in Pakistan at such risk is section 295C of the penal code--the blasphemy law--which President Zia introduced in 1985. Under that law, it is punishable by life imprisonment or by death to make remarks which blaspheme against the Prophet Mohammed or the Koran by imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly. The law is being used by Islamic fundamentalists--who often produce utterly false evidence--to encourage the Islamisation of the country and to intimidate Christians to convert to Islam. As it is a cognisable offence, the police can automatically arrest and imprison someone accused of it. Once in prison, no Christian is safe from beatings, torture or murder.
The law is administered by courts in which, for blasphemy cases, all judges and advocates must be Muslim. There can be no unbiased justice. Any Muslim who has converted to Christianity in Pakistan will be at risk for as long as he or she remains in Pakistan.
During my visit, I met Salamat and Rehmat Masih, who had been subject to such persecution and who were in hiding awaiting trial. Salamat was 12 years old when he was accused of scrawling a blasphemous slogan on a wall, although, according to his defence lawyer, he was illiterate. Outside the High Court, they were attacked by motor cyclists with AK47 rifles, despite being under police protection. A fellow Christian, Manzoor Masih, was killed and Salamat and Rehmat were wounded. Fortunately, they are now in Germany having been granted asylum in that country. They want to return to their families in Pakistan, but they can never go back--at least in the present climate--because it would mean death to them all. I hope that, like Germany, this country would have offered them asylum.
Those examples are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Pakistan. I have details of many cases of similar persecution, all of which show that, far from there being a presumption against the risk of persecution, the situation for Christians in Pakistan is such that there should be a general presumption of the risk of persecution.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is fully aware of the situation--not least because, to his credit, he visited Pakistan last month. I am extremely grateful to him and to my hon. Friends the Minister of
State and the Under-Secretary for providing the opportunity to meet them, together with the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, last month. They will recall a young Indian, Dr. Simon Qadiri, who fled from his country because there was a fatwa on his life for converting to Christianity. He is currently awaiting the outcome of his application to remain here and I very much hope that it will be considered compassionately. I am also grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for the asylum given to a very brave Pakistani Christian a few weeks ago. I dare not name him because his family in Pakistan remains very much under threat.
I hope that what I have said is enough to convince my hon. Friend the Minister of State that to suggest that Pakistan and India are free of such persecution would send out all the wrong signals. It would encourage Islamic fundamentalists, who would say that Britain recognised that there was no problem. That would demoralise members of the Christian community, who would feel abandoned by their mother country. I hope that my hon. Friend will think again, and I look forward to her response.
Miss Emma Nicholson:
It is a pleasure to support the amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for initiating the debate and to other colleagues for supporting the amendment, which addresses our shared concern about the impact of the lists and the fact that they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny in any meaningful sense of the word.
During the passage of the 1993 Act, the Minister said that the Government had no intention of designating countries where there was a threat to the life or freedom of citizens and that to do so would be to fly in the face of logic and our convention obligations. My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill has demonstrated that, in Romania, a country that the Government are prepared to list, there is significant justification for being afraid for one's life. He has also mentioned north Cyprus and we have now heard about Pakistan.
One is tempted to ask who has the knowledge. Where is that cluster of people with continuing and changing knowledge of persecution and horrible tortures in so many countries? The Foreign Office has that knowledge, but it can sometimes be wrong. I have already mentioned Iraq, on which the Foreign Office was clearly in error. That is easy to say with hindsight although, as I said earlier, after the chemical bombing of the Kurds in 1988, most of the world knew that Iraq had no good human rights record. If that is seen and understood to be true--as it is with hindsight--let us also have a negative list. If we are to have a positive list that we cannot subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, let us have a negative list that includes such countries as Iraq. We should not remove them from that list until they have achieved transparent human rights, exemplified by the fair treatment of all citizens.
The good list would undoubtedly contain all the European Union countries and many members of the Council of Europe. As has already been said, there would be problems with that, and perhaps not all the Council of Europe countries should be included. The list would also include members of the British Commonwealth. After all, Commonwealth countries have already passed the golden test of being democracies, and implicit in that is the record on human rights.
Even South Africa, which has made magnificent strides into the real world of no apartheid, has significant problems and Mrs. Ogata, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has accepted several official refugees. I am responsible for one of them. His life would be at risk if South Africa were designated a white country. Must we use those ridiculous terms that carry such silly and foolish connotations? It is quite bizarre, but typical of the Government, who are out of touch--as always. We should call such countries good and acceptable rather than white.
Although South Africa is a member of the British Commonwealth and has emerged into the light of day with everything in order in regard to democracy, it still creates problems for some people--perhaps those who fell foul of Mrs. Mandela or her ugly cohorts who killed so many people--and therefore cannot go on the good list. I have full and consistent knowledge of one refugee and I have rights of attorney for him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke movingly about the persecution of Christians. European Union countries would have to be on the good list as they represent the most perfect grouping of all, yet in Germany, France and other countries there is continuing and rising persecution of religious minorities. At present, there is considerable persecution of Muslims in Germany, France and Italy. That is why Muslims fleeing persecution in their homeland--not necessarily for religious reasons--come to the United Kingdom. Despite the 1993 Act, and because the Bill has not yet reached the statute book, Britain still has a reputation--which is falling fast--for tolerance.
In conclusion, it was a tragedy that Britain, with no membership of UNESCO, did not officially take up the banner of the United Nations last year--the year for tolerance. Perhaps it was because tolerance is not in the Government's guidelines.
Miss Widdecombe:
I feel that much of the debate has been conducted on a complete misapprehension. There is no question whatever that, just because a country is on the designated list, an individual will not have his asylum claim thoroughly examined.
The purpose of the designated list is to designate countries that are not safe completely, totally or without exception, but are generally considered to be safe. They might generate a large number of applications and a high percentage of refusals. Despite the high percentage of refusals of asylum seekers from Pakistan and Romania, each year a very small percentage receive either asylum or exceptional leave to remain, which is granted when an individual has not satisfied us on the precise terms of the convention, but has done so on humanitarian terms. There is no good reason to suppose that, merely because a country is designated and therefore recognised as one likely to bring about a large percentage of refusals, a small percentage of acceptances will not continue. There has been some misapprehension. It is certainly not true that somebody's life would be in danger merely because the country in which they were living appeared on the designated list.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |