The 2010 International Religious Freedom Report

Nothing for Europe to crow about.

The US State Department has just released its annual International Religious Freedom Report (you can find the Executive Summary here and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks introducing the report here).

The list of designated Countries of Particular Concern -- those that have "engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom" -- is not entirely unexpected: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan. But Saudi was not the only US ally to come in for harsh words. The summary concludes the following about Egypt, for instance:

The status of respect for religious freedom by the government remained poor, unchanged from the previous year. Members of non-Muslim religious minorities officially recognized by the government generally worship without harassment; however, Christians and members of the Baha'i Faith, which the government does not recognize, face personal and collective discrimination, especially in government employment and their ability to build, renovate, and repair places of worship.... Government authorities often refused to provide converts with new identity documents indicating their chosen faith. The government failed to prosecute perpetrators of violence against Coptic Christians in a number of cases.... [and] continued to contribute to a climate of impunity.

A few bald facts put the other side about holiday destinations like the Maldives, where you may be surprised to learn that the "law prohibits citizens from practising any religion other than Islam". While the "good news" includes the odd statement that might raise eyebrows among some readers. Take this one about Morocco: "In positive developments, on July 28, 2009, King Mohammed VI formally acknowledged the Holocaust..." Progress of a kind, one supposes.

Just as interesting, however, is what the report has to say about the UK and our neighbours.

In Austria, the report listed 200 anti-Semitic incidents, including one where a Palestinian refugee bit off part of a rabbi's finger.

In April, Belgium's "House of Representatives adopted draft legislation prohibiting persons from appearing in public with the face fully or partially covered, if it makes identification impossible. The draft legislation was sponsored by members of the center-right Francophone Liberal Party (MR), but it received nearly unanimous support in the House of Representatives. Because of religious freedom concerns, the sponsors made no mention in the text of burqas or niqabs. However, human rights advocates and spokespersons of the country's Muslim community criticized the initiative arguing that it was racially motivated."

France: "The country is home to Europe's largest Muslim and Jewish communities. Members of these and other groups were victims of violent physical attacks, attacks on their places of worship, and discrimination..... During the reporting period, the government proposed draft legislation that would prohibit the wearing of face-covering veils in public. Some religious groups criticized the proposed legislation because if passed it would restrict religious freedom." The bill has since been passed by both the National Assembly and the Senate, although a constitutional challenge is considered likely. "The public debate on this problem intensified when President Sarkozy condemned burqas as 'not welcome on French soil' during a speech on June 22, 2009."

Germany: the list of anti-Semitic incidents, many of them involving the vandalism and desecration of synagogues and cemeteries, to which the report refers is too long to repeat, but includes this horrific example: "during a soccer match, supporters of SV Muegeln-Ablass 09, a district-league soccer club in the eastern state of Saxony, chanted 'a tree, a noose, a Jew's neck' and 'we're building a subway, from Jerusalem to Auschwitz,' until the match was stopped."

Hungary: "Extremist groups grew in size and number. These included the far right-wing political party Jobbik, which grew in popularity while taking openly anti-Semitic positions, and winning 47 parliamentary seats (12 percent of the total) in the April 25 national election." When its members took their seats in May, "Jobbik Chairman Gabor Vona wore a black vest with symbols of the party's banned paramilitary arm, the Magyar Garda."

Italy: Despite many efforts, which the report details, "no Muslim group has been able to build a mosque in the past year", while in April a 1975 anti-terror law was used to prosecute a woman for wearing a niqab. She was fined Euros 500.

Netherlands: The report mentions the electoral success of Geert Wilders and his trial on charges of inciting hatred against Muslims (which has just collapsed), anti-Semitic attacks and arson attempts on mosques. "Muslims faced societal resentment, attributable to perceptions that Islam is incompatible with Western values, that Muslim immigrants have failed to integrate, and that levels of criminal activity among Muslim youth are higher than the national average. Major incidents of violence against Muslims were rare; however, minor incidents including intimidation, brawls, vandalism, and graffiti with abusive language were common."

The list goes on, and you can find the full index for individual countries here.

But two patterns emerge: anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim attacks are far more commonplace all over the continent than we might wish to think. And, as Secretary Clinton said in her introductory speech : "Several European countries have placed harsh restrictions on religious expression." While this may not be the same as the threats to religious freedom she also mentions, from authoritarian regimes and from violent extremist groups, I would say it fits into her third category: "the quiet but persistent harm caused by intolerance and mistrust which can leave minority religious groups vulnerable and marginalized."

The headlines may be grabbed by what the report has to say about China and Saudi Arabia, but there is not so much for Europe to crow about in it, either. In fact, it's more of a stern "room for improvement".

Sholto Byrnes is a Contributing Editor to the New Statesman
Getty
Show Hide image

This is no time for Labour to turn its back on free trade

The Brexit negotiations centre on a trade deal. But Labour is divided on the benefits of free trade. 

On Wednesday 29 March, Theresa May will trigger Article 50 and the process of leaving the European Union will begin. The Prime Minister and David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, have made a commitment to “pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union.” On 24 January in Parliament, Davis went even further and committed the government to negotiating “a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have".

As Labour’s Shadow Brexit Secretary, Keir Starmer set out earlier this week, it is critical that we hold the government to account on Davis' pledge. But it is also crucial that the Labour movement gets to grips with the new reality of trade deals with the EU and other countries, resists any knee-jerk protectionist instincts and makes the right progressive demands on workers’ rights and environmental and consumer protections.

The successful negotiation of a free trade deal with the EU is essential. Together, the remaining 27 EU countries are by far and away our largest export market. And we import more from the EU than from any of our other trading partners. A UK-EU trade deal will therefore be the single most important free tree agreement the UK will ever have to strike, and if it covers both goods and services it will also be the most comprehensive deal that any country has ever negotiated with Europe.

The stakes are high. Our EU membership has given us unfettered access to the single market which is so much more than a free trade deal. It is a vast, integrated factory floor across which goods conform to the same regulations and standards. At the border with the EU, goods are not subject to customs duties, onerous rules of origin or time-delaying checks. Given that services make up 80 per cent of our economy, the government must seek much greater access for our services than the EU has been willing to grant to other countries in the free trade deals it has negotiated so far.

Retaining the exact same benefits is going to be a huge challenge. Indeed, there is no guarantee that such a deal will be achieved, particularly within the two-year period set out under Article 50. The government has already struck the wrong tone with our European partners. The Foreign Secretary seems intent on needlessly upsetting them. The PM parrots the mantra “no deal is better than a bad deal”, effectively threatening to walk away. It is crucial that a new positive dynamic is established to create mutual goodwill and help deliver an ambitious UK-EU trade deal.

There is a substantial risk that the government’s mishandling of Brexit could see the UK fall out of the EU with no trade deal at all, thereby falling back on to World Trade Organisation tariffs and barriers. Furthermore, we would do so with none of the technical agreements in place - such as financial services equivalence agreements and mutual conformity of assessment agreements - that other major countries around the world enjoy. As Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UK Permanent Representative to the EU, recently asserted in his evidence to the Exiting the European Union Select Committee, on which I sit, “no other major player trades with the EU on pure WTO-only terms”.

The Prime Minister asserts that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, but it is increasingly clear that no deal is the worst possible deal. It would do considerable damage to our economy. And yet, we have learnt that Cabinet members have been told to plan for the no deal scenario. In recent weeks, Davis has admitted to the Brexit Select Committee that the government has conducted no analysis of what this would mean for the British economy. Labour will fight strongly against such a reckless step which would hit jobs, living standards and growth.

As Starmer said in his speech to Chatham House, the government must agree a strong and collaborative relationship with the EU. If it does not, it will not be acting in the best interests of the UK and it will not have Labour’s support.

I believe that Labour must champion the right free trade deal with EU over the next two years. We must demand that the government accepts meaningful transitional arrangements that will be necessary to successfully complete such negotiations. A successful EU-UK deal could then become a template for future agreements. After all, our country’s future economic prosperity rests on striking free trade deals not just with the EU but with other G20 economies and developing countries around the world. So Labour must become a champion for striking progressive free trade agreements.

Yet this poses a challenge to the Labour party. Within our movement, there is currently a heated debate about what our approach to trade should be. This was exposed by the recent votes in the UK Parliament and European Parliament on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (Ceta) between the EU and Canada when Labour MPs and MEPs were divided. I fear Labour risks sliding into a dangerous position: one of perpetual opposition to trade deals that puts us the wrong side of the public interest and history. Globalisation cannot be stopped but it can be regulated. So the real challenge is how to make it work for people so that they can benefit from an increasingly globalised world.

No trade deal is ever perfect. Each is inevitably the result of negotiation and compromise. However, if we followed the advice of some on the left and refused to ratify any trade deals, no matter how progressive, the UK would be isolated, poorer and left behind. Of course we need assurances that public services will be safeguarded, that workers’ rights are protected and environmental and consumer protections are in place in any deal, but we also need to open up markets. Trade deals are not the threat to public services that some claim, but a failing economy facing trade barriers that puts a squeeze on the public finances is a clear and present danger.

Labour’s values place us in a strong position to lead the way in rejecting the Tory right-wing approach of unfettered globalisation, a race to the bottom and unchecked markets. We must show that we are the party of work and workers, looking to both create jobs and protect the rights of workers in our future trading relationships. Our internationalism can be expressed by establishing progressive global rules and opening up markets, using trade to bind nations together in a way that prevents conflict and opens minds.

As these historic negotiations begin, Labour must hold the government’s feet to the fire and champion regulated and progressive free trade deals with the EU and other countries. Turning our backs on properly regulated free trade will not further social justice or economic prosperity on our shores, it will only serve to do harm to both. Labour has to reject the defeatism of protectionism and instead embrace progressive free trade agreements if we are to truly succeed in building a fairer and more prosperous economy for the people we represent.

 

Emma Reynolds is MP for Wolverhampton North East and former shadow Europe minister. She sits on the committee for exiting the European Union.