Letter to Nadhim Zahawi (and Others) RE: The Proposals to Repeal and Replace the Human Rights Act (1998)

I have recently written a letter to my MP (Nadhim Zahawi), voicing my grievous feelings towards the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act.  I have copied the text for anybody who reads my blog and would be interested in reading:

Dear Mr Zahawi

I am writing to you as one of your constituents who has grave concerns over the Government’s proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act (1998), with the intention of replacing it with a more UK centric Bill of Rights.

I have studied your rhetoric on Europe and my understanding is that your position is moderately Eurosceptical. For the sake of clarity, I will say that I agree with you that Britain’s best interests lie with us remaining as part of the European Parliament, but whilst I am also in agreement that the EU and European Parliament need reform and that the best solution lies in not “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”, I am generally less sceptical than you and disagree with you on where the “baby” ends and the “bathwater” begins. Whilst I hope to obtain your support on the basis of my own argument, I accept that a more convincing case may be to illustrate to you how Britain’s position within the EU may be threatened by the consequences of a successful repeal of the Human Rights Act.

My concerns on the matter of the Government’s position over the Human Rights Act date back to 2011, where I set out my thoughts at the time on my blog, www.nickssanctuary.com. 

In 2011, when this first became an issue for me, the Home Secretary attempted to convince the public that a Bolivian individual escaped deportation on the basis of owning a cat (when in fact the cat was merely cited as a minor example on a very long list of criteria illustrating that a human relationship the individual in question had, was genuine and thus fell under the right to family life), it became apparent to me that the reasons for trying to repeal the HRA were ideological and not merely practical. The argument most proponents for the intent to repeal make, is that it is simply a transfer of jurisdiction about where and who determines the same rights.  I believe this is a straw man argument - a selling point that highlights a potential beneficial consequence of a repeal that conceals its actual purpose.  Besides, it is our own judges who uphold rulings like these and so the issue is not about who interprets these laws, but on the laws themselves.

When you look at the primary text of the HRA, there is nothing wrong in principle at all with it, we would be right to frown on anybody who objected to them. However, if the HRA is being misinterpreted, it is only because civil case law has gradually, over time, eroded or mutated its intent. I have little doubt that the same fate would eventually await any British Bill of Rights.

We must always be aware that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Even if the reasons for repealing the HRA were noble (something I do not accept), by committing to this course of action we would set a precedent for countries with a far more disturbing human rights record to emulate us. Great Britain helped lead the way in bettering human rights. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, we helped secure the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it was a British citizen who subsequently helped forge the document that became the European Convention on Human Rights. It would be shameful if having played such a significant role in bringing other nations into the light, we enabled the door to swing the other way and became facilitators for nations pining for the darkness.

What happens when we start deciding that for whatever reason, on principle, one human being has more value than another? Is it not a slippery slope that has potential to result in dark episodes?

We must also take the long view with regard to this legislation. If a Bill of Rights becomes something malleable that successive Governments can use to further their own private agendas then even if it were used for a good purpose, the spectre that a more questionable or nefarious use for it would always hang over it. If Government overplays its role in scrutinising who and what is acceptable, the very notion of who is protected by the Bill of Rights becomes a movable feast and this is dangerous.

I don't necessarily oppose the composition of a Bill of Rights as it could be a useful tool to accompany the HRA in defining the responsibilities that accompany the freedoms. However, I don't see why it should need to replace the HRA. The Act doesn't just defend my rights; if I abuse the rights of another, then the Act works against me too. In fact technically, the legislation could be protected against the politicians who wish to do away with it:

“If any of these rights and freedoms are breached, you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority, such as, for example, a police officer”.

Does that not suggest that if the Government (being a lawmaker and source of authority), tries to repeal the Act, then they are actually violating our existing statutory human rights and are prosecutable themselves?  In my view the only legitimate way around this would be to hold a referendum. If the electorate clearly demonstrate by two thirds majority that they ultimately reject HRA, then I could see (regrettably), a case for doing something about it, but that mandate at the moment is far from clear.

These are my arguments for retaining the current legislation but as I said earlier, I recognise that if I’m to win your support, I must make a different case and this is it:

As a moderate Eurosceptic, you appear to believe that we have a place within the existing EU and that in the case of a referendum; you would prefer us to stay within it. I put it to you that should the law pass within Britain our position within Europe would be threatened from other influential nations within the EU. I also put it to you that should the law fail to pass, less moderate Eurosceptic rhetoric will gain more traction and the influence of Europe may be used as a scapegoat to deflect or embellish embarrassment over Government defeat… this would likely have an adverse effect on the subsequent referendum to remain within the EU. If Great Britain did regrettably exit the European Union, I believe that then and only then would be the a more reasonable time to have a Bill of Rights in place as a legislative successor to the HRA.

In conclusion then, I ask once again for your support. I would be extremely grateful for a response on this occasion; in the past I have tried communicating with you via email and Twitter and whilst I recognise that the latter isn’t the best format for formal political engagement, I am deeply disappointed not to have had the courtesy of a reply to my previous correspondence. I apologise for the somewhat lengthy nature of this letter but I hope the amount of time I have taken to write this demonstrates the level of feeling I and many like me have on this matter.

Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts. I would be grateful if you would consider what I have to say and let me know how you intend to proceed.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely

Nick Payne

Incidentally I have also dispatched similar letters (modified to reflect party position and general commentary), to David Cameron, Harriet Harman, Nick Clegg, Caroline Lucas, Alex Salmond, Jonathan Edwards, Tom Watson and Stella Creasy). I did so in deference to their position as respective leaders of their parties or in the case of the latter two MPs, because I have a modicum of respect for some of the notable high profile work they have done as individuals.

I additionally intend to follow these efforts up by corresponding with Justin Welby, John Sentamu and Prince Charles.

I will keep you up to date as to any response I receive. In the meantime here are a few links to some campaigns if you want to show some support... and a couple of questions for feedback here:
 
Liberty
38 Degrees
Tom Watson

• What are your thoughts and feelings with regard to the Government proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace it with a UK Bill of Rights?
• Are you planning on doing anything to make your views known?
  
  

Rights and Wrongs

Several days after the Home Secretary - Theresa May literally let the cat out of the bag (bad joke I know), I thought I'd take a fresh look at what all the political angst is all about... namely The Human Rights Act 1998.

Many Tories including Theresa May and the Prime Minister David Cameron, are opposed to the current legislation because they believe it hampers the immigration service by protecting criminals and stopping them from being deported. Those who are against the Human Rights Act propose instead that the UK should have a bill of rights (similar to the USA), that outlines responsibilities as well as entitlements under law.

Before I go on, I just want to take a look at a summary of the Human Rights Act that you can find on the DirectGov website:

The Human Rights Act 1998 gives further legal effect in the UK to the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. These rights not only impact matters of life and death, they also affect the rights you have in your everyday life: what you can say and do, your beliefs, your right to a fair trial and other similar basic entitlements. 

Most rights have limits to ensure that they do not unfairly damage other people's rights. However, certain rights – such as the right not to be tortured – can never be limited by a court or anybody else. 

You have the responsibility to respect other people's rights, and they must respect yours.

Your human rights are:

• the right to life
• freedom from torture and degrading treatment
• freedom from slavery and forced labour
• the right to liberty
• the right to a fair trial
• the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
• the right to respect for private and family life
• freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
• freedom of expression
• freedom of assembly and association
• the right to marry and to start a family
• the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
• the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
• the right to an education
• the right to participate in free elections
• the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

If any of these rights and freedoms are breached, you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority, such as, for example, a police officer.

I wonder... can you seriously look at that list and see anything wrong in principle? No. There isn't a single thing I would disagree with. As a Christian, everything I see in that list is covered by Christ's command to love our neighbour as ourselves.

You see in my opinion the problem often isn't to be found in laws themselves... but in the people who interpret them. I don't believe swapping out one law and replacing it with another would find any permanent effective solution. There will always be people who seek to manipulate law or exploit a loophole or create a legal aberration for their own devices and eventually civil case law gradually ushers common sense away and we find ourselves back at square one. This is not something that is limited merely to criminals and their defending lawyers... judges, prosecutors and lawmakers are equally guilty.

Take Theresa May's own words for example. She took the case of a Bolivian immigrant and cited cat ownership as the deciding factor in preventing his deportation. In fact it was not... even in her own quote she refers to a "they". In context, the Bolivian had an unmarried partner and the acquisition of a cat was merely used as an example of the things they had done together as a couple... it was not the driving force behind the judge's decision.

None of this is new... politicians, authorities and legal experts have been worming their way around laws and statutes ever since the gleaming rays of the dawn of civilization first warmed mankind's cheeks.

Christians should be acutely aware of this because in the Bible, The Pharisees practically turned it into an art form! I was reading up on Matthew 23 while writing this blog and it struck me that a lot of the patterns that Jesus criticised the teachers of the law for, are common to those in authority who are drawn to power and use legislation as a way of procuring or preserving it.

This is the problem you get in society when you literally "enshrine" the law but neglect to leave room for grace. The letter of the law takes over and the spirit of the law diminishes. Pretty soon you find yourself straining out gnats and swallowing camels or painting whitewashed tombs. Jesus summed it up perfectly... the most important matters in law are justice, mercy and faithfulness.

Sometimes I wish judges or people in the right circumstances just had the conviction and authority to just metaphorically tear up legal papers pertaining to a case and call it on its common sense merit. People aren't stupid, they often know when someone is feeding them a bucket of manure, they don't need a piece of paper to tell them. If a criminal or lawyer is twisting the words of the law to apply a level of protection or prosecution to imply something it doesn't actually mean... then I say it is this that needs to be changed and not the laws themselves.

I don't necessarily oppose the composition of a bill of rights... but I don't see why it should need to replace the Human Rights Act. The Act doesn't just defend your rights; if you abuse the rights of another, then the Act works against you too. In fact technically, the legislation could be protected against the politicians who wish to do away with it:

If any of these rights and freedoms are breached, you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority, such as, for example, a police officer.

That kind of suggests to me that if a politician (being a lawmaker and source of authority), tries to repeal the Act, then they are actually violating all of our human rights and are prosecutable themselves.

In conclusion then, I would support a bill of rights that accompanied and worked alongside the Human Rights Act, one that clarifies what society finds acceptable behaviour and expected responsibility... without removing or diminishing the rights of citizens under the current set up.

After all... the Human Rights Act is not just a bureaucratic bundle of papers imposed on Britain by the European Union. It finds its origins in the Declaration of Human Rights that Britain signed up to as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council with powers of veto. We helped lead the way... how great would the burden and sense of shame be if we turned our backs on it?

The Art of Succesful Protesting: Thinking Outside The Box

I've been paying attention to the protests that have dogged the tour of the Olympic Torch on it's journey around the world.

I am in total agreement about the chronic human rights abuses that the Chinese government regularly carries out. Those who want to make a point about a regime that is honouring the spirit of fellowship and fair play with it's lips, whilst having at it's heart, an attitude that is light years away from such a concept... have my full support.

It's even more appalling that our Governments are spending money protecting the political interests of the Chinese Government, in the face of many of their own citizens who are opposed to that Government. It is clear that they value eastern investment more than they value the people who pay for their extortionate parliamentary expenses packages.

It's clear that international police forces have been incredibly well briefed and prepared... deploying an extensive amount of resources and using flexible route planning to frustrate the attempts of the protesters.

Have you ever noticed though, when it comes to protesting...the most whacked out schemes are the ones that generally succeed? Police are extremely well equipped to handle people on the streets... but when you come out of left field with an idea like climbing the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco (see below), it gives them less time to form an effective strategy and the best they can hope to do is act retrospectively - diversions or making subsequent arrests.

If you want to put the mockery of an Olympic flame out.... I favour an airborne strategy. I think an excellent idea would be to hire out one of these babies:

That's right... a fire plane, or at least a crop duster. Just fly in out of nowhere and ditch fire extinguishing materials on the targets below you. A substance such as the one deployed above would be especially poignant; the red tint would serve as a reminder of the blood shed in human rights atrocities.

One thing though... I wouldn't try it in the US... they'd shoot you down.

The question of people's right to protest in the name of causes such as Tibet raises another in turn. In four years time... is my country going to be finding itself in a similar situation over crimes committed by it's own politicians. Sure, they may not be as numerous... but the causes that people might find reason to protest for or against... are certainly powerful enough.

I guess I'd better start saving up for flying lessons then.

Grey Rights

Why is it that society is changing in such a way that anything exclusive must be evil?

I am writing of course, in response to the news that the Christian Union at Exeter University has become embroiled in a legal battle over it's membership and enrolment criteria. Now call me what you will, but I believe that if an organisation exists for a specific purpose that fundamentally defines it's very identity, then it has every right to take steps to protect the factors that decide the nature of it's existence.

It is considered rude and bad form to attend a restaurant - be it Indian, Chinese, Thai, Mexican, Italian or French... and demand an English dish. You go to those places to partake in their unique flavour and cultural offerings, you don't go to subject them to your own bland demands... or at least you shouldn't. Why should it be any different for religion or gender for that matter?

Why do we all have to go into the cosmic blender and become congealed into a morass of grey blandness? Sometimes I look at other blogs that are emblazoned with the "Embrace Diversity" banner... and I wonder what the authors understand by that statement? I am sure they fall into two groups. There are those who believe that diversity is about believing everything in culture is equal without question... that we should all have a shared morality that encompasses all belief. There are also those who believe that everybody is equal and entitled to their beliefs... but do not necessarily believe that all those beliefs in themselves are equal. I'm more inclined to believe the latter. I think we can learn from one another's beliefs... but I feel we are wrong when we try to supplant our own agenda (be it liberal or conservative) into a belief system. Don't get me wrong... I have nothing against using examples from one religion to suggest that in actuality it is pointing to another... but to actually change a people's religious practices without them changing their religion... isn't conversion, it is just hybridization.

In a couple of earlier posts I've pointed out that I don't think it's right to expect non-Christians to have to comply with Christian standards if they don't subscribe to the faith. Now I'm turning the argument on it's head. I am defending Christianity's right to maintain it's own standards in the face of outside cultural pressure. I don't want to force my culture on humanity... but I expect humanity to share that same level of respect for my culture. I don't want people who have no interest in a relationship with Jesus Christ... dictating the terms of religious doctrine to me - that is irrespective of whether such people are conservative or liberal.

True diversity lies in accepting and respecting people despite what differences you may share.

If we are going to start accusing people of discrimination on the basis of exclusivity... then I am going to start using ladies toilets... it is discriminative to ban men from any toilet on the basis of their gender. Of course I'm not serious... I only intend to illustrate how ludicrous it is to legislate such things.

Christian Persecution: The International Hall of Shame

You may have noticed a link to the Open Doors Foundation on the right hand side of my blog. Open Doors seeks to assist and encourage Christians who are persecuted in the world. It seems hard to believe it happens from way over here in the nice comfy West... doesn't it? For your information.... I am posting a "naming and shaming" list, of countries who carry out or allow wide scale persecution to take place. If by chance you are reading this and you come from one of them... please do not think I am getting at you personally. The list was compiled using a rating based on a set of questions, it is updated annually and some of the nations on the list (e.g. Turkey), have improved and are continuing to do so. So without further ado:


1. North Korea
2. Saudi Arabia

3. Vietnam

4. Laos

5. Iran
6. Maldives
7. Somalia
8. Bhutan
9. China
10. Afghanistan
11. Yemen
12. Turkmenistan
13. Pakistan
14. Comoros
15. Uzbekistan
16. Eritrea
17. Myanmar
18. Egypt
19. Sudan
20. Libya
21. Iraq
22. Azerbaijan
23. Morocco
24. Brunei
25. Nigeria (North)
26. Cuba
27. Russian Federation [1]
28. Tajikistan
29. Sri Lanka
30. Djibouti
31. Mexico (South) [2]
32. Tunisia
33. Qatar
34. India
35. Nepal
36. Colombia (Conflict areas)[3]
37. Indonesia
38. Algeria
39. Turkey
40. Mauritania
41. Kuwait
42. Belarus
43. United Arab Emirates
44. Oman
45. Syria
46. Bangladesh
47. Jordan
48. Kenya (North east)
49. Ethiopia
50. Bahrain

Copyright (c) 2005 Open Doors International
[1] Muslim republics of the Russian Federation: Chechnya, Kabardino Balkarya, Dagestan

[2] Southern Mexican state of Chiapas

Focus on the Top Ten

1. North Korea ►
The Stalinist country of North Korea is characterized by a complete lack of religious freedom and of many other human rights. For the third year in a row, North Korea heads the ranking as the worst violator of religious rights. Christianity is observed as one of the greatest threats to the regime’s power. The government will arrest not only the suspected dissident but also three generations of his family to root out the bad influence. Our local co-worker reports that at least 20 Christians were arrested for their faith in 2004. It is believed that tens of thousands of Christians are currently suffering in North Korean prison camps, where they are faced with cruel abuses. North Korea is suspected to detain more political and religious prisoners than any other country in the world. Though no exact figures can be given, our staff discovered that more than 20 Christians were killed by open air shootings or by beatings in the prison camps during the past year.

2. Saudi Arabia ►
Also this year, Saudi Arabia is high in the top ten of the World Watch List. Religious freedom does not exist in the Wahhabist kingdom. Its citizens are not allowed to adhere to any other religion than Islam. The legal system is based on Islamic law (sharia). Apostasy -- conversion to another religion -- is punishable by death. Christians and other non-Muslims are prohibited from gathering for public worship. Christians spreading their religion are likely to be imprisoned, as was Indian citizen Brian O’Connor who was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment and 300 lashes during the past year. While in prison, he discovered other Christians in prison for their faith in Saudi Arabia. O’Connor was physically mistreated and pressed to convert to Islam, then released unconditionally from prison after seven months and deported.

3. Vietnam ►
New to third place is Vietnam, rising one position. One of the few communist nations in the world, Vietnam considers Christians to be a hidden enemy. Authorities fear that Evangelical Christianity, suspected to be connected to the United States, is being used in a peaceful revolution against the communist system. Although the constitution provides for religious freedom, the government considerably restricts unrecognized religious activities. A new law on religion was introduced during the past year and bans any religious activity deemed to threaten national security, public order or national unity. The new ordinance was also used to prohibit unregistered church services in private houses. More than 100 Christians -- mainly from a tribal background -- were imprisoned. Many were forced to renounce their faith. During Easter, hundreds of ethnic minority Montagnards were arrested or injured and an unknown number killed in demonstrations against religious oppression and confiscation of tribal lands in Dak Lak province. Though the demonstrations resulted from a larger Montagnard issue and cannot be attributed solely to Christian repression, they probably brought additional repression to minority Christians.

4. Laos ►
Laos’ constitution provides for religious freedom in this Southeast Asian country. However, the absence of rule of law and specific regulation on religious matters allows local officials to interpret and implement the constitutional provisions as they choose. Article 9, for instance, discourages all acts that create divisions among religions and persons, and officials use it to prohibit evangelizing and to discourage religious conversions. Decree 92 on religious practice requires that almost all aspects of religious practice be approved by the authorities. During the past few years, religious conditions have improved slightly for Protestant Christians, although intolerance continued in some areas. Several Christians were arrested and accused of engaging in illegal church activities outside of their church premises because they didn’t have an official permit to travel outside of their villages. They were also accused of speaking negatively about the government. Some local officers have threatened to kill believers if they do not renounce their faith.

5. Iran ►
Islam is the official religion in Iran, and all laws and regulations must be consistent with the official interpretation of sharia law. Because conservative parties were victorious in the elections (at the beginning of 2004), religious freedom further deteriorated. Although Christians belong to one of the recognized religious minorities who are guaranteed religious freedom, they have reported imprisonment, harassment and discrimination because of their faith. Iranian authorities have banned the Bible and closed down Protestant churches that accept worshippers from an Islamic background. Hundreds of Christian converts were arrested throughout the year. Iranian Christians considered the detention of 85 Christian pastors in September to be the biggest crisis in 10 years. Most of the prisoners have been released, but many reported they received severe beatings and threats in jail. A former army colonel was sentenced to three years in prison for hiding his Christian faith, despite documented proof that the army knew he had become a Christian before he was ever given officer rank. There is a risk that he will be charged before a sharia court. In sharia legislation, apostasy is punishable by death.

6. Maldives ►
In the archipelago of the Maldives, Islam is the official state religion and all citizens must be Muslims. Sharia law is observed, which prohibits the conversion from Islam to another religion. A convert could lose citizenship as a result. It is prohibited to practice any other religion than Islam, which is considered to be an important tool in stimulating national unity and maintenance of the government’s power. Hence it is impossible to open any churches, though foreigners are allowed to practice their religion in private if they don’t encourage citizens to participate. The Bible and other Christian materials cannot be imported apart from a copy for personal use. In the country -- one of the least evangelized countries on earth, -- there are only a handful indigenous believers who live their faith in complete secrecy. The lack of respect for religious freedom in the Maldives remained the same during 2004.

7. Somalia ►
The eastern African country of Somalia is new in the top ten. Less than one percent of ethnic Somalis are Christian, practicing their faith in secret. Having no central government, the country lacks a constitution or other national laws to protect religious freedom. Islam is the official religion and social pressure is strong to respect Islamic tradition, especially in certain rural parts of the country. Somali Christians indicated that they face heavy pressure to join Islam. During 2004, several Christian converts from Islam reported physical assaults due to their new faith, and some had to escape to other villages. In those regions, even the possession of a Bible can lead to a dangerous situation. Three converts were killed by fundamentalist Muslims because of their beliefs. There is a saying that a Christian Somali is a dead Somali -- when discovered, they risk immediate death.

8. Bhutan ►
Mahayana Buddhism is the state religion in the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan. Officially, the Christian faith does not exist and Christians are not allowed to pray or celebrate in public. Priests are denied visas to enter the country. Christians are being deprived of their rights, such as children’s education, government jobs and setting up private businesses. Society exerts strong pressure to comply with Buddhist norms. During Easter, three house churches were raided by the police. The church members were warned not to gather for worship and told that the government considered their meetings to be “terrorist activities.” The import of printed religious matter is restricted, and only Buddhist religious texts are allowed in the country. The lack of respect for religious freedom did not change during 2004.

9. China ►
During 2004, China’s government increased control of religious activities, further restricting them. Three internal directives were issued, aimed at the suppression of conversion of Communist Party members, the growth of religion and religious organizations across the country and the increase of religious activity on university campuses. The government wants Marxist atheism research propaganda and education to be further strengthened. Local Christians reported intimidation, harassment and detention of believers. Several mass arrests took place in which hundreds of unregistered Christians were detained. A Christian woman was beaten to death in custody for handing out Christian tracts. However, the number of believers in both registered and unregistered churches continued to grow.


10. Afghanistan ►
Afghanistan is back in the top ten. Religious freedom for Christians deteriorated mostly because of the influence of Islamic extremists. During 2004, five Afghan Christian converts were killed for abandoning Islam and spreading their new faith. Some parts of the country, mainly in the south and east, are still under the influence of the Taliban. Afghanistan’s new provisional constitution does not provide sufficiently for religious freedom. The document stipulates that the country is an Islamic republic. Followers of other religions are free to practice their religion provided that these practices are within the limits of the provisions of the law and that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” This clause basically gives the official and unofficial religious leaders the right to question every action that they might consider contrary to their beliefs. Blasphemy and apostasy still fall under sharia law and are officially punishable by death. Christian converts face social discrimination and threats.


Countries Where the Situation Deteriorated ►
Apart from Somalia and Afghanistan, the status of religious freedom deteriorated in Iraq, Eritrea and Ethiopia.

Whereas Christians enjoy more political liberties than before in Iraq, they are experiencing considerable pressure from fundamentalist groups. Written threats, kidnappings, bombings and murder by Muslim extremists continued to drive tens of thousands of the minority Christian population out of the country. Several churches were bombed in 2004 and many were injured or killed. In some parts of the country, Christian women are forced to cover their heads. The general insecurity allows crimes such as killings, rapes and property confiscations to remain unpunished. Religious minorities are the main victims of this lawlessness and unrest. At the beginning of 2004, the draft constitution was agreed upon. It recognizes Islam as a source of legislation and specified “no law can contradict the universally agreed tenets of Islam.” The vague wording of this provision could lead to clerics holding veto power over the legislative body in determining what is Islamically correct.

The year 2004 saw a wave of arrests of evangelical believers in Eritrea. More than 400 Protestant Christians are currently imprisoned for their beliefs, a clear increase compared to the previous year. The believers suffered severe punishment and were locked in metal shipping containers. Many were put under pressure to renounce their faith. The only authorized religions recognized by the state are Eritrean Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Evangelical Lutheran and Islam. A new phenomenon last year was the arrest of Catholics, who are officially recognized.

Although the constitution of Ethiopia provides for freedom of religion, local Christians feel the government controls this freedom. Evangelical believers are not recognized and they report their churches are monitored. Christians experience the most opposition from local authorities and radical Muslims in majority Islamic regions. A number of believers have been imprisoned or have remained in hiding throughout the year because of their faith. Christians from an Islamic background are often fiercely persecuted by family members. Not only are they ostracized from the community, but they also face threats and attacks.


Countries Where the Situation Improved ►

The situation for Christians improved to different extents in Sudan, Colombia, Myanmar, Algeria, Turkey and Qatar.

After 21 years of devastating civil war, which claimed the lives of two million people, Christians in Sudan are cautiously hopeful for the new peace deal. Under the accords, the mostly Christian and animist South will remain autonomous for six years. Subsequently, there will be a referendum on independence from the largely Muslim North. Local church leaders expect the agreement will mean a lot to the Christians in Sudan. They expect to begin to enjoy access to food, water, shelter, medicines and clothing, which they were denied before. Also, as far as we could verify, fewer Christians were killed or physically harmed during 2004 than in the previous year.

Whereas the status of religious freedom did not change significantly in the conflict areas of Colombia, the ranking dropped because fewer Christians were reportedly killed or physically harmed compared to the previous year. Nevertheless, believers in rebel-occupied areas continue to live under pressure and amidst violence, partly because of their faith, although this is not easy to discern. The national army and guerrilla factions accuse believers of being allied with the rival group, although the church holds strong to its non-violence convictions. Guerrilla groups are also blaming the church for discouraging local youth from joining the insurgency. Pastors are kidnapped for money, and many live under threats of kidnapping. Evangelical families are among the thousands of persons displaced by fighting, and believers are killed in bomb explosions.

During 2004, we were able to collect more information on Myanmar during field trips. This information disclosed that religious freedom is less fierce than previously estimated. However, Christian believers still face church closures, major difficulties in registration, prohibition of construction of church buildings, and discrimination in the workplace.

There is an indication of slight improvement in the situation of Christians in Algeria. Threats against churches by Islamists continued, but they remained without repercussions. According to our staff, Algerians are increasingly getting used to the presence of Christians -- even indigenous believers -- and are tolerating them more and more. The indigenous church is growing, and they are able to gather openly with little interference from the authorities. Generally, the government does not interfere in the activities of non-Islamic religions. However, by law it is still prohibited to gather to practice a faith other than Islam, and non-Islamic evangelizing is illegal. Converts from Muslim backgrounds often face strong social pressure, especially from family and neighbors.

The status of religious freedom for Christians in Turkey improved to some extent. Legislation for religious freedom was somewhat accommodated to European Union laws. A Turkish pastor was acquitted of criminal charges for opening an “illegal” church due to the recent reforms. At the end of the year, formal approval was granted for his church -- the first new Protestant church to be built since the founding of the Turkish republic. Small Protestant congregations have often struggled against police and court harassment during the past 10 years. A Turkish TV producer was even sentenced to almost two years in jail for airing false provocations against Turkish Protestants. According to our local contact, the improvement is not really defined in most formal laws or accepted in the minds of the people.

The Gulf state of Qatar enacted its first constitution in 2004, guaranteeing freedom of expression, assembly and religion. Also, five Christian communities were allowed to begin construction of new churches. The Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Anglican and Protestant churches will be the first Christian churches in the country since the seventh century. Before the new constitution was adopted, the Christian communities in the country were illegal but tolerated.


So what do you make of it all. Do you have any personal experiences of persecution? Please list them if you do. This is your place to let the people of the free world know that people still suffer for the name of Jesus.

Tony Blair's Speech

As many regular visitors will know, I am strongly biased against the authoritarian right politics of Tony Blair. Something he mentioned in his speech yesterday, caught my ear. Here is the segment to which I refer:

"The whole of our system starts from the proposition that its duty is to protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted.

Don't misunderstand me. That must be the duty of any criminal justice system.

But surely our primary duty should be to allow law-abiding people to live in safety.
It means a complete change of thinking. It doesn't mean abandoning human rights. It means deciding whose come first"

I apologise for quoting him (it's like using the black tongue of Mordor in the Shire). What he said didn't sit right with me. Those of you who read your bible will know that if you read a version with complex words that you don't understand, it is fairly easy to misinterpret what the Bible is saying. I think Blair's speech was written deliberately to have the same effect.

If you broke down this paragraph in to basic English (especially the emboldened words), you could argue that Blair is sanctioning the imprisonment of the innocent, to ensure the safety of the masses. He seems to be saying "if the Government believes somebody is dangerous... regardless of background, we should put them in jail without evidence or proper trial; in the interests of national security". If that were true, it would be authorising political imprisonment, which is abhorrent.

I'd like your thoughts on that particular segment of his speech, please let me know what you think he is saying.

There is a Storm Coming...

Sometimes, the news can get very depressing... but nonetheless, it's good to keep informed.

Last night was a good example. First there was the news that the ID card bill had passed through the first hurdle on it's way to become law. For those who don't know, this is my position:

As long as it was just a photo ID card with basic essential details on it, I'd be fine. However I resent the whole idea of biometric information being stored. I'm also highly opposed to the presence of a computer chip that can update the Government on your movements, every time you are processed somwhere using your ID. The Government has no God given right to know where on Earth I am, nobody does. As for the biological info. As for the bioligical information, I don't see why any government should be allowed to keep this on file. The Blair regime is corrupt enough as it is, however... can you even imagine what a truly maniacal government could do with access to that much data. In a worst-case scenario, if you became a political "problem" and they had access to your DNA; they could create a personalised toxin that would harm you alone. Imagine what Hitler could have done with access to the information that comprises the human genome, and the resources to develop specialised biological warfare. If you had the knowledge and the technological means, you could theoretically eradicate an entire genetic subgroup in a short space of time. That prospect chills me to the bone. Even if that wasn't the case, our biology is none of the Government's darn business. This isn't just something lawbreakers need to be fearful of, it doesn't matter whether or not you've got something to hide... privacy will begin to become a thing of the past. The current thinking on ID cards is barely a few steps away from skin implant tagging. Trust me, you don't even want to go there. Think about it, it would be the end of political free expression... because if you ever became inconvenient... you wouldn't be able to hide. I don't know any charismatically minded Christian who is actively for such a scheme. As it stands, about 84% of the public are opposed to it... so how the heck can Dr Evil (cough cough) sorry Mr Blair, even have the gall to claim that it's what most of the public wants?

As for making us pay for a compulsory scheme that we don't want, that's just taking the proverbial michael. It is no better than rubbing someones nose in excrement.

As if things weren't enough, the next story covered Zimbabwe. What the heck does my country think it's doing? Our Government is deporting asylum seekers back to a country where it knows they will come to eventual harm... probably death. I know asylum is an issue for many people, but Commonwealth countries should receive our priority in my opinion. If a country within the Commonwealth has become oppressive, I feel the UK is honour bound to take in people who flee from it. As a former colonial power, we must not forget that we share a degree of responsibility for the quality of democracy that has evolved. I'm not saying it's our fault. I'm just saying, if we've historically been in a country and messed about with it's power structure, we should be among the first to offer help when the wheels fall off. Even if we can't take them in ourselves, we should at least have an agreement with the rest of the Commonwealth to share out genuine asylum cases among them. The Government will not reconsider it's position, and the deportations will continue. They have however suspended them according to the Times, merely to keep the heat off Blair. Personally with regard to his career, I say let Mr Blair cook. He was a wolf in sheeps clothing from the start. The Commonwealth and the UK need to come up with a realistic and much stronger approach to dealing with Mugabe. What's the point in economic sanctions... the people who end up suffering are the poor and the common man. Dictators like Mugabe are experts at turning the anger and hatred that come from that into political brownie points. All evil dictators need to turn a people to war and persecution, is a scapegoat. Right now Mugabe is laughing because he's got exactly that, and it's us all the way!

We should never pick our fights on the basis of profitability... but on the worthiness of the cause. This is an issue I raised in an earlier, recent posting as well.

As I switched channels, I noticed the sound of thunder erupting across the dark, shrouded sky. Lightning flashed with intensity, as if God and nature themselves were angered by the politics of Britain at the moment. It seemed fitting to me, that according to the reporter, when the ID card vote was taking place, London was at the eye of a black and terrible storm.

The Smoking Debate

I've been listening with great interest, to the radio with voxpops of people's varying opinions on the subject of banning smoking in public places.

I am not, nor ever have been a smoker (that is unless you consider my time in the womb as counting). Everyone else in my family is, although my sister has recently quit. I respect that it's not just a pastime, but an addiction and many people smoke purely because they find it hard to stop.

There is an argument for smokers rights, and I'm glad that this is a debate that is happening with large scale public consultation. However, one lady was very ignorant when defending it. She claimed that excessive drinking was harmful too, so perhaps they should ban drinking. Can anyone else spot the fundamental flaw in her argument?

It reminds me of a wonderful but rather crude Dave Allen observation in which he attended a dinner party after quitting smoking. A guest offered him a cigarette but he turned it down explaining he had quit. The guest took slight offence saying that there was nothing wrong with it and that only the smoker was harmed... people around him only got the residue... besides, every man has a few vices... pointing out that Allen was a drinking man... to which Allen wonderfully retorted that although this wasn't true, he didn't expose his companions to the "residue" of his vice (by urinating on them).

Of course, the lady defending smoking by attacking drinking misses one very crucial point... apart from random acts of violence, the only person a persistent drunk will likely harm, through illness or injury... is themselves. Smoking is a different ball game altogether. Yes, you mess up your own organs, but then you breathe out smoke that damages other people... look at the late Roy Castle - never smoked, often played trumpet in smokey environments... died of lung cancer. Ok, so most people don't spend all their time in smoke filled clubs... but the guiding principle should be the same. The only person you have a right to do that to... is yourself. Smokers pay a heavy tax on their habit, which helps fund the medical bills they stack up in later life.

I think people have a right to eat and drink smoke-free in an enclosed area. In fairness though, many of the traditional pubs in Britain have a character that is in part defined by a smokey atmosphere. I personally feel some pubs should be allowed under license to carry on allowing smoking, but that a clear distinction should be made on the door before you go in.

I feel sorry for heavier smokers... if and when this comes in, the withdrawal symptoms are going to be harsh for them. It would be a cold person indeed who would bring in such a law and have no sympathy for those "negatively" affected by it.

This then raises other issues. What if we drive? Are we not doing the same damage as smokers? I believe a similar approach is needed. I DO drive. I don't live in an area where public transport is readily available. However, whenever I've been to a metropolitan area, I have always used public transport. I must point out though, that public transport in my experience has been sporadic in it's efficiency... and that must be resolved.

I think in both issues, it all boils down to how close you are to the people around you. If you are out in the open, or on your own property, the risk to other people is minimised, and that is all anyone can expect or ask (even in this scenario I'm still at risk because both my parents smoke).

That's just how I see it now. I'm open to other opinions and I welcome you to add your views even if they are at odds with this. All I ask, is that you reply with respect.

G8 Conference

I've recently been invited to join some friends who are planning on getting a coach to help the "Make Poverty History" campaign in a rally at the G8 Conference in Edinburgh. Getting a coach from Warwickshire to Scotland will take ages! Transport in this country is prohibitively expensive. It's crazy. Someone at my work is flying to Amsterdam for about £2, but to get to Edinburgh from Birmingham & back is £89. Logic?

I was there at the G8 in Birmingham in 1998. I remember it well. I was taking part in the Jubilee 2000 campaign. I was angry because the G8 leaders changed their plans and escaped to Weston Park for the day, so the protest was only received by lower ranked representatives. I was also a bit peeved because when we passed by The Atlantic Hotel, one of the US snipers who were posted on the roof (as protection for then President Clinton), aimed at me with his rifle when I waved up at them!

On the positive, it was a really powerful and moving experience to be part of, and what's more it WAS for a worthy cause. There were in the region of 80,000 of us standing in a circle, round the International Convention Centre. There was a massive unified roar of defiance from the crowd for about 5 minutes. We then began chanting "Cancel the Debt!" for another 10 minutes. the petition was received and we made our way out.

This year, there will be even more momentum, because the Live Aid 2 concert will be happening around the same time. So the people of the western world will be very much aware of and focused on the "Make Poverty History" agenda.

I've never been north of the border believe it or not, so I also have an ulterior motive to go. However going on coach seems a bit of a long haul to me!

I encourage any of you who can make it to take part in the protest. Even if you can't do that, pray about it... and if you can't do that, then make sure at some point in your lifetime you take in some form of political protest... everybody should do it at least once, it's quite exhilarating.

Choose your causes wisely though.

Besides, if you put your name to ANYTHING remotely political in this country, you get your very own dossier at MI5! OK so admittedly they probably don't have more than an A4 sheet on me at present, but it's fun to be thought of as a little subversive.... keep 'em on their toes, that's what I say!

For anyone who thinks doing something like this is a waste of time, I leave you with this scripture from Ezekiel 1:4-8 to ponder:

The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says.' And whether they listen or fail to listen—for they are a rebellious house—they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, do not be afraid of them or their words. Do not be afraid, though briers and thorns are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious house. You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. But you, son of man, listen to what I say to you. Do not rebel like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you."

We don't engage in fierce debate on the grounds that we might win, we challenge those who oppose us because the cause is righteous.

N

Or as Babylon 5 put it:

"Tell the other rangers, the ambassadors, everyone in this army of light. Babylon 5 stands with you. Tell them, tell them that from this place we will deliver notice to the parliaments of conquerors that a line has been drawn against the darkness and we will hold that line no matter the cost." - Sheridan to the Rangers: "The Long, Twilight Struggle"

Blair "Terror Warning"

And so we have yet another Terror warning from Uncle Tone. Here's the dictionary definition of the word "terrorise":

v 1: coerce by violence or with threats [syn: terrorize] 2: fill with terror; frighten greatly [syn: terrify, terrorize]

So, yes, we do have hundreds of terrorists within Britain's borders. However, if you look at interpretation 2, it has to be said perhaps one of the biggest and influential terrorists lives behind a black door with No.10 stamped on it? No? I'm sorry, but the politics of fear is just as an effective terror weapon as any c4 explosive package... perhaps more so, because ideas are that powerful.

I do believe there is a real physical terrorist threat, yes of course I do. However, I believe it's being deliberately played up and the politics of fear is being played like a card to bring in REALLY dodgy measures that under normal circumstances, the general public would NEVER accept.

The thing that bothers me, is that I don't see an end to this. I don't trust any of the political parties with our democratic future at the moment. None of them seem worthy of it. I believe if you don't believe in a parties policies heart and soul, you shouldn't vote for them. Why should we have to settle for the least worst party?

I trust Gordon Brown, he seems like a man of integrity to me. However I don't see Blair standing aside until some fancier job comes along... like maybe EU President or err Supreme Potentate (that was said tongue in cheek before any eschatological fiction readers get all excited!).

What hope for this country? It's going to the dogs.

Thoughts anyone?

Tel Aviv

What I heard on the news sickened me last night!

When a ceasefire is in place, you hope that everyone will try and make it work. then a few brainless heartless dissidents go and jeopardise it all. Regardless of what you may believe, these people don't serve God... these people:

"Their deeds are evil deeds, and acts of violence are in their hands. Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and destruction mark their ways. The way of peace they do not know; there is no justice in their paths. They have turned them into crooked roads; no one who walks in them will know peace."

Personally I would urge the Israeli Government not to retaliate, for as Solomon, king of Israel once wrote:

"My son, do not go along with them, do not set foot on their paths; for their feet rush into sin, they are swift to shed blood. How useless to spread a net in full view of all the birds!"

Sorry to get so heavy on a Saturday morning folks.... just hearing the news upset me. I saw Panorama once, when a reporter was allowed access to a suicide bombers training camp, and it enraged me. YOU DO NOT TEACH YOUR CHILDREN TO BECOME CANNON FODDER FOR YOUR IDEALS. There was that famous poster with a toddler strapped with explosives, that was used in a recruitment campaign. Utterly disgusting and repugnant.

Both sides have treated one another terribly in the past... but when there is hope for peace, it is absolutely imperative that everyone holds their nerve.

My prayers go out to the people who have suffered on this occasion.

I know a lot of people who would say, there will never be peace in the Middle East until such and such happens. I don't like the mentality of only backing a cause you know you can win. In my mind if you believe what you are saying is right, you should stand by it even in the face of adversity... and I'm not saying you have to use violence at all. I'm saying stand by your principles and adhere to them when oppression comes, whatever form it takes... don't cave just because all the other fish are swimming the other way. What I'm saying actually is opposed to the violence we see around us. Do we do the easy thing, cave in and start blowing people up? Or do we hold to the truth, have faith in our convictions and just trust that good will win out in the end?

I'm not saying there isn't a case for resistance in some instances, but we should not yield to the impulse and temptation to resort to violence so readily.

The law of this world is "survival of the fittest", the law of God is "love your neighbour as yourself".

We must constantly choose which one to serve.

Racial Hatred Laws

I've received an e-mail from a friend of mine (thanks Em) regarding the proposed Racial Hatred laws. There are several Christian charities that are getting concerned that should the law be passed, it will severely hamper their work overseas.

Hard as it may seem for many people in the west to believe... there are places in the world where Christianity is still treated with much the same disdain that it received during the early Roman persecutions. There are places in the world where the dominant regional culture (whatever it may be) abuses or persecutes Christians and/or their places of worship.
The fear is, the wide mandate of this new law could technically make it illegal to speak out (in this country) against cultures that condone the abuse of the Church.

We should of course seek to stamp out something that discriminates against people because of their physical/ethnic background. However, I think questioning or openly criticising a persons ideas, motives and beliefs (when done respectfully and in good faith that something is badly wrong), is fair game... and I include my own beliefs, views and motives in that assessment.

I'm saying this as someone who has had to defend their faith from criticism from various quarters. People don't always agree with Christian viewpoints, and that's their prerogative. However, I'd never deny someone the right to question my faith... because then, how could I answer them?

It's for this reason I think religious tolerance should be encouraged rather than legislated.
The Christian charities are worried that they are going to face prosecution for speaking out against human injustices at the hands of religious/ideological extremists.

Incidentally for anyone wanting more info, I've added a link to the charity website Em sent me. Have a look, see for yourself and then decide on your own evaluation what to do!

N