Sometimes the reforming radicals are those
who also seek to conserve.

Yesterday’s debate on Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent, which I moved and in which I focussed on Kashmir, may be found here:

Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): I beg to move,

That this House has considered the issue of Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent.

I am extremely grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for making this debate possible. My predecessor, Paul Goodman, took this issue extremely seriously and I am sure that had this mechanism been available he would have called such a debate. I am also extremely grateful to the Members who turned out to support me at the Committee: my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) who spoke about Sri Lanka, the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin).

The origin of this debate was my request for a debate on human rights in Kashmir and the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North for a debate on Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, some commentators mistakenly thought that we sought to conflate the two issues. That is not the case. It suited the Backbench Business Committee to bring the issues together under the heading of “Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent”.

I have a simple purpose: to give a voice to the thousands of British Kashmiri constituents who demand and are entitled to representation in this place, their Parliament. I am aware that many Members wish to speak about Sri Lanka, so for the sake of time I will rely on my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North to cover that issue. I will say only that I support my Tamil constituents’ demand for an independent international investigation.

I shall let the debate stand in its own right.

On ConservativeHome’s Platform: Steve Baker MP: Egypt teeters, exposing lessons for the UK:

Under the auspices of the Iman Foundation, Syed Kamall MEP and I travelled this week to Cairo to promote pluralism and the principles of a free society. We delivered two successful seminars on democracy, freedom and tolerance – one for senior political and academic figures and one for young activists – in addition to meeting members of Egypt’s political class. These seminars followed Syed’s previous work in Cote d’Ivoire based on Principles for a Free Society, a short book written by British academic Dr Nigel Ashford.

You can read the rest of the article on ConservativeHome but I would particularly recommend Ashford’s book.

At only 96 pages, the book (PDF) is fabulously concise and insightful. Those who think freedom is opposed to society ought to note that the first chapter is “Civil Society” and it begins by quoting Alexis de Tocqueville:

Among the laws that rule human societies there is one which seems to be more precise and clear than all others. If men are to remain civilised or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which the equality of conditions is increased.

In reading the book, I found I stepped back from the drama of present events and the specialisms I have adopted to reflect again that the UK is not a shining example of a free and open society. One need only read the section on toleration to realise what we have yet to regain.

A number of my constituents have contacted me about the situation in Sri Lanka and the allegations of war crimes.

I wrote to Alistair Burt, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, seeking more information. He recently replied as follows:

The UK wants to see lasting peace and security in Sri Lanka. We have encouraged the Government of Sri Lanka to involve all communities in a fully inclusive process which addresses the underlying causes of the conflict.

On 25^th April the UN Panel of Experts published its report on accountability for alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during the military conflict which ended in May 2009. We are studying the report carefully, but the serious allegations made in it make it clear that the issue of accountability must be resolved before lasting reconciliation can be achieved in Sir Lanka.

We have consistently called for an independent and credible investigation to address these allegations which is why we fully support the decision of the Secretary-General to establish the Panel of Experts. We encourage Sri Lanka to use its response to the UN report and the report’s recommendations to strengthen the process of accountability.

I await the Government’s extended views when Sri Lanka replies to the UN report. In the meantime, here is the full report.

There is to be a statement on this subject later today. It will be interesting to see what powers are transferred, to what extent British people are subjected to overseas police powers by this measure, and what democratic control is to be exercised over those powers…

Update: The Home Secretary’s statement is here. Big Brother Watch wrote about the EIO here, before we opted in:

The EIO is intended to make it easier to gather evidence on another member state’s soil. Amongst other things, it would grant foreign police the right to carry out the ‘real time’ interception of communications, monitor a person’s bank account, demand bodily samples, DNA or fingerprints from a person in another EU state.

I look forward to their update.

This morning, I held two meetings to discuss Israel’s interception of the Free Gaza Flotilla. There is justified horror and anger at events. First, I met members of the Wycombe Muslim Communication Forum before meeting Conservative Muslim councillors.

Over the next few days, the Muslim Communication Forum will provide feedback to me on the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House of Commons. I will then send a briefing note to the Foreign Secretary on local views and give an expanded personal position on this site.

While I support EDM 127, I have declined to sign it because, for reasons which were accepted in my meetings, I do not support the mechanism of “Early Day Motions”: I intend not to sign EDMs at all, irrespective of whether I agree with their content. I will explain further this position on another occasion.

The EDM reads as follows:

That this House is appalled by the loss of life associated with Israel’s attack on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza; notes that UK and other nationals have been held by Israel despite the attack having taken place in international waters; endorses the call of the United Nations Secretary General for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards; recognises that Israel’s blockade which has destroyed the economy of Gaza and deepened poverty still inflicts widespread suffering and, by imposing collective punishment on the people of Gaza, is itself contrary to international law; and calls on the international community to require Israel to end its blockade and to redouble international efforts to secure a lasting settlement with a secure and independent state of Palestine alongside a secure and independent Israel.

I support this position in addition to the British Government’s position as set out by the Foreign Secretary. Specifically, it is a tragedy that UN Security Council resolution 1860 has not been implemented, including ending the blockade to enable “the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment.”

Wycombe constituents who wish to express a view are invited to do so through the Wycombe Muslim Communication Forum, through the Muslim councillors or by sending me mail using this contact form.

In the meantime, I see Israeli troops have boarded the MV Rachel Corrie (BBC). Al Jazeera reports that the Israeli intention is to transfer aid from the ship to Gaza. I will monitor how the situation develops but the entire episode illustrates the need for all parties to work towards a viable, peaceful, two-state solution which recognises the equal value of every person.