International Human Rights Day 2025

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Human Rights Day 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Butler. I am grateful to hon. Members for attending this debate on International Human Rights Day, a day marked each year on 10 December. The debate follows last week’s parliamentary reception, organised by the all-party parliamentary human rights group and Amnesty International, which was a reminder that across the parties there remains a deep commitment to defending rights and exposing abuses. I declare an interest as an officer on that APPG, which was founded in 1976 by the late Lord Avebury. For decades the group has raised the profile of international human rights issues in Parliament and publicised abuses wherever they occur. I am proud to support its work.

Human rights are under attack. They are dismissed as a “criminal’s charter”, treated as obstacles to power, or caricatured as a wish list and then ridiculed. But they were not invented for convenience; they were forged in the aftermath of the second world war after mass killing, torture and the attempted annihilation of a people. We made a promise then that every life has value, every person deserves protection from persecution and discrimination. Those principles are not museum pieces; they are the foundations of our daily freedoms to meet, to protest, to worship, to speak, to be tried fairly and to be treated equally. When those protections are removed, the consequences are immediate and brutal: arbitrary detention for peaceful critics, presumption of guilt, scapegoating of minorities, and the machinery of cruelty—torture, disappearances and killings. That is the flipside of abandoning rights.

We see the consequences in many places. Russia’s repression at home accompanies aggression abroad. The situation in Gaza and the west bank has produced devastating civilian suffering and wider regional instability. Sudan’s civil war has brought reports of ethnic annihilation. In China, Uyghurs and Tibetans face systemic repression and Hong Kong’s freedoms have been considerably narrowed. There are other urgent cases that rarely dominate headlines: Belarus, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela and the too-often-forgotten Azerbaijan, Burma, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Haiti, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkey and Turkmenistan. They have different histories and different politics but the pattern repeats: rights are sidelined to preserve power, justified by appeals to stability, law and order, counter-terrorism or tradition. The techniques are often familiar: they divide communities, distort information, silence independent voices, and pass laws that look reasonable but are designed to intimidate.

This is not only a distant problem. Even established democracies feel the pull of strongman politics. Populism is dressed up as dynamic quick fixes, decisive leaders and fewer constraints, but rights and democratic norms are the price of that apparent speed. Populism feeds on disillusion and polarisation. It treats rights as optional. The global trend is clear, as highlighted by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest democracy index. In 2024, fewer people lived in full democracies than in previous years—only 6.6% of people globally. Where democratic space shrinks, the vulnerable suffer first. People should be careful what they wish for. The early gains of a charismatic leader can lead to the long-term cost of fear and division.

We in Britain have a proud tradition of defending rights. That tradition is not abstract. It was built by people who risked and sometimes gave their lives for freedom. We must build on that legacy and be mindful that our conduct matters abroad. When Britain falls short, others point and follow.

Why should we care about abuses overseas? Because they affect us. Russia’s aggression threatens European security. Conflict in the middle east reverberates across the region. Human rights collapse abroad can undermine our national security, invite foreign interference, corrode our democratic institutions, damage trade relationships and—yes—drive refugee flows. But there is also the moral case to stand with those persecuted for exercising fundamental rights, and to support human rights defenders who risk everything to hold power to account. If we are serious about ending impunity, we must back the institutions that exist to hold abusers to account, such as the International Criminal Court, a court of last resort for victims. ICC officials have been placed under US sanctions in a worrying attempt to intimidate the very people who pursue accountability.

Now, more than ever, such institutions need our practical support, not token words. We have tools at home to help us promote, protect and advance rights abroad. The overseas security and justice assistance guidance, arms export licensing criteria, targeted sanctions and assessments of business and human rights compliance are useful, but they must be used consistently and transparently and be properly overseen. Ministers and officials need clearer guidance and better cross-departmental knowledge sharing, so our message does not drift. Trade envoys should be briefed on political and human rights risks so they can promote responsible businesses. Courts should be empowered to exercise universal jurisdiction over the gravest crimes.

Businesses should have certainty about their obligations to prevent and remedy human rights and environmental harms across supply chains. International leadership is often uncomfortable: it means saying hard things to countries with whom we also want to trade and co-operate and holding firm when headlines move on, but it is necessary.

On this International Human Rights Day we should celebrate what has been achieved—the institutions built and the freedoms defended—and speak plainly about what remains to be done. At home, we must protect rights and strengthen democratic practice. Abroad, we must keep rights central to our engagement, even when that complicates other objectives. That is not work for Government alone. Parliamentarians, civil society and individuals each have a role. Authoritarianism grows when people look away. Rights decay when silence becomes the norm. The antidote is collective effort and moral clarity. Again, on this day, let us recommit to the principles forged out of the worst of human history—principles that protect the best of human possibility. Let us stand with the persecuted, defend the defenders, and act in ways that match our words. I urge the Minister to reaffirm the UK’s leadership in defending universal rights, and I look forward to contributions from hon. Members across the House.

I end with the often repeated words of Martin Niemöller, a German Lutheran pastor who first supported Hitler and then became a critic and was imprisoned. His warning against apathy remains as sharp today as when it was first spoken:

“First they came for the socialists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out for me.”

Order. Please stick to three-minute speeches. There is likely to be a Division in the middle of the debate.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. We owe a big thank you to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) for setting the scene incredibly well—well done him. I should declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which speaks for those with Christian beliefs, those with other beliefs and those with no belief.

Across the world, millions of individuals face discrimination, intimidation, imprisonment and violence simply for practising their faith or holding their beliefs. From restrictions on worship to targeted attacks by state and non-state actors, their fundamental freedoms are violated daily. We live in a world where persecution in one place ripples into many others. The global community is interconnected, and so too are the consequences of neglect. Human dignity is not divisible. When any group is denied their right to believe, gather and live openly, every part of society is diminished.

The United Kingdom has a long tradition of defending freedom of religion or belief worldwide. The Bishop of Truro’s review in 2018 laid bare the scale of global Christian persecution. I acknowledge that the Government have made progress, but without sustained political will from the Minister and the Government, who are, I believe, committed to this, those abuses will continue unchecked.

What can we do? We can strengthen our diplomatic pressure on states where persecution is widespread.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the UN penholder for Sudan, the UK has the moral responsibility to ensure the ongoing human rights travesty there does not continue, most importantly by ending all arms trade to the United Arab Emirates?

The hon. Gentleman is right to bring up that issue, which has figured in every question about the subject. The Government must take action on that. If there is an evidential base, we need to act on it.

Levels of oppression across the world have reached near-genocidal intensity in some regions, so the UK and this Government need a more robust and strategic response. We must put diplomatic pressure on states and ensure that aid programmes prioritise vulnerable minorities. We should expand training for our diplomats and work with international partners to collect evidence, monitor abuses and pursue accountability. We can step up to advocate for those who are marginalised, silenced and oppressed around the world—those who are not only left behind but actively suppressed by the very nations that should protect them. We must uphold the principle that no person should ever fear violence, exclusion or imprisonment because of their faith. That is a daily reality for Christians in countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan, North Korea, Eritrea and others that seldom make the headlines. That is why this work is so urgent.

On this International Human Rights Day, let us renew our resolve. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must continue to lead, advocate and act. Our words carry weight and our actions will determine whether persecuted communities feel the protection that this Parliament pledges. I urge the Government and all colleagues to press forward more boldly, more consistently and with clear purpose to defend the rights of Christians worldwide and uphold the universal freedoms that safeguard us all.

I am sure we will be interrupted by a Division any minute now, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing this debate, aptly on International Human Rights Day itself.

I declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary human rights group. Last week, I hosted our International Human Rights Day reception, together with Amnesty International UK, which was well attended. It showed that human rights remain a priority across Parliament and among all parliamentarians. Today marks the progress of the international human rights framework, now supported by more than 60 treaties protecting vulnerable groups, including women, children and persons with disabilities. Next year, the United Nations will begin drafting a new convention on the rights of older persons—a process I hope the UK Government will fully support. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.

The theme of this year’s International Human Rights Day is how human rights shape and improve everyday lives. In democratic countries, rights are largely respected, which is reflected in how we live, although we can never afford complacency. It is often said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Some colleagues will raise domestic concerns, but I will focus on the international dimension and its purpose for those who do not enjoy many rights in daily life. The rights framework empowers people, providing standards based on entitlement to state protection by which they can judge and call out Government actions.

I want to highlight the work of human rights defenders —lawyers, journalists, activists, community workers and trade unionists—who peacefully promote and protect rights, support victims and hold perpetrators accountable. They take great risks to spotlight abuses and seek redress, facing reprisals from state and non-state actors, harassment, imprisonment, statelessness, exile, torture and, in the worst cases, disappearance and death.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) for securing the debate. I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary human rights group.

I will start by highlighting the work of environmental human rights defenders and indigenous rights defenders, who are in need of our continued support. Their vital work protecting the land, health and livelihoods of their communities can be extremely dangerous. The 2025 Global Witness report documented the killing of 146 such defenders, the majority in Latin America, including 48 in Colombia, which has had the most killings globally for the past three years in a row, followed by Guatemala, where 20 defenders were killed last year. That is shocking.

Two thirds of the cases are linked to land or land reform, and indigenous people are disproportionately targeted. To mention two emblematic cases, Berta Cáceres from Honduras, a celebrated indigenous Lenca leader and Goldman environmental prize winner, was murdered in 2016 for her resistance to the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam. Her case became a major international warning about the risks faced by activists. Fikile Ntshangase, a South African activist, was shot dead in her home in 2020 for her leading role in a campaign against a coalmine. These women were incredibly brave—absolute icons and leading lights of international human rights work.

There are so many other unsung heroes doing the same. Claudia Ignacio Álvarez, from Mexico, whom the all-party group recently hosted, has faced threats and forced displacement for her work defending rural and indigenous communities. In Indonesia, Dewi Anakoda, an indigenous Tobelo woman, has received death threats and been violently attacked for helping journalists to expose the destruction of the neighbouring uncontacted Hongana Manyawa people’s territory resulting from the mining of nickel for electric vehicles.

On resuming—

I will call the Front Benchers at 5.33 pm.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am delighted to be speaking in this debate about International Human Rights Day and I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing it. I declare an interest as the UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. It will come as no surprise that I will focus on reminding us all that our history in this country places freedom, including religious freedom, at the heart of who we are as a nation and therefore at the heart of what we seek to achieve in the world around us.

Our country took many centuries to reach the point that we are at now. Thousands of British people have died over the centuries, because they worshipped in the wrong way or did not worship at all. In fact, our country’s relationship with religious freedom is in essence our history. I challenge us all to put a finger down on any part of British history at random and not to see that what is there is linked to religious freedom in some way, for better or for worse. Slowly, however, we developed a better way forward. As our country has become more tolerant, diverse and peaceful, we have moved from strength to strength. Who we are as a nation is wrapped up in the religious freedoms that have evolved into the superb protections that we now call human rights.

In one area, however, we seriously lag behind and that, ironically, is sometimes in our ignorance of the importance of religious freedom in this country and especially around the world, which is my responsibility. Our country is covered with churches from all over the world, yet sometimes we could be forgiven for thinking that religion is a private or unimportant matter. The rest of the world looks at us and thinks, “That’s crazy”, because everywhere else, religion is a major factor in people’s lives.

The world’s largest atheistic state, China, takes religion incredibly seriously. Religion is the main threat to the Chinese Communist party, so the Chinese authorities are busy stomping out Buddhism and the freedom of Buddhists, persecuting Falun Gong sects and shutting down churches. That is why, in July this year, I was pleased to speak at the Human Rights Council in Geneva to challenge the Chinese Communist party on its attempt to interfere with the succession of the next Dalai Lama. The world’s most heavily nuclear-armed state, Russia, takes religion seriously, too, and Russian identity is built on the belief that it is the home of the faithful Church. The world’s richest country, the United States, takes religion incredibly seriously and has a whole office for international religious freedom in its State Department. That is because being denied freedom to believe denies our humanity, and it heralds the coming of darkness.