Muslim MPs discuss Stories of Islamophobia in the British Parliament

 

MUSLIM MPS SHARE SHOCKING STORIES

OF ISLAMOPHOBIA, URGE TORIES TO ACT

 

Dr Mozammel Haque

Followings are the report by the Islam Channel on the Debate on Islamophobia in the Westminster Hall of the House of Commons in the British Parliament on 24 November 2021.

“Muslim MPs shared their experiences of Islamophobia in a heated Commons debate on the topic on Wednesday.

In the one-and-a-half-hour debate, MPs from various parties demanded the Conservatives accept the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims' definition of Islamophobia and engage with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) again.  

But the debate turned into a row with the Conservatives protesting that it had become political — the Tory Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch accused the other parties of turning the issue into a “political football”.

SNP MP Anum Qaisar responded by saying she tore up her planned speech to instead talk about her lived experience of facing Islamophobia: “I was nine years old when I was asked if my dad was a terrorist the day after 9/11."

"To be perfectly frank, I will not accept a debate in which we are told that we have to take the politics out of it, because the Prime Minister peddles dangerous rhetoric when he says that veiled Muslim women look like “letterboxes”. I am a Muslim. I know how that feels" added Qaisar.

MPs share their lived experience

Labour shadow minister Rosena Allin-Khan revealed how she was attacked when she was 11.

"Like many other speakers today, I have my scars. From being attacked by a racist gang in the park with dogs, as me and my brother ran away, having our clothes ripped from us, scared; to the audible gasps of, “Why the hell would you choose to be a Muslim?”, my experiences are as real as they are painful," she said.

Apsana Begum, Labour MP for Poplar and Limehouse, talked of being the first hijabi MP and how that makes some people uncomfortable: "From the regular mispronunciation of my name to being mistaken for other hijab-wearing women who work in Parliament, to being asked, even, if I am related to Shamima Begum."

She added: "This is the kind of material that I receive: “Vile and filthy religion…importing vile and filthy creatures like Apsana Begum”; “Muslims should be banned from public office…we can’t trust their allegiances”; “Muslims are the masters of lying. They are the bane of our Christian society. They do not belong and should be deported”; “Deport the Filth”; “Throw her and her family back to where they came from”; “Chop her hand off”; “This could be one of your last statements”. Those are not even, by any measure, the worst of what I receive."  

The debate was secured by Afzal Khan, Shadow Leader of the House and Chair of the Labour Muslim Network, who pointed out the importance of defining the problem as it is the "first step in rooting it [Islamophobia] out."

Both Khan and Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy also questioned the government's controversial appointment of William Shawcross to head a review of its anti-radicalisation scheme Prevent. Shawcross is accused of having a "hostile view of Islam and Muslims."

"The appointment of William Shawcross is just a symptom of something that must be addressed in this debate: the Conservative party’s Islamophobia crisis," said Khan.

Other Muslim MPs talked about the wide-ranging issues that stem from Islamophobia.  

Labour's Yasmin Qureshi mentioned Islamophobia in other countries, while colleague Naz Shah highlighted the media's role in fuelling Islamophobia and how it results in unconscious bias.

"A sizeable percentage of British Muslim women do not wear the headscarf, not because they do not want to but because they fear that, by wearing one, they may be attacked, or due to prejudice, will have lower chances of succeeding and reaching the top," said Shah.

MPs from all sides underlined the positive impact and contribution of Muslims to wider society, from running soup kitchens to playing an active role in community initiatives.

Heated debate

MPs addressed the defensive tone of the comments from the Conservative Party.

SNP deputy leader Kirsten Oswald said: "The tone of some of the comments opposite was really regrettable today... And some of the eye rolling and the language used was most unfortunate."

Meanwhile, Lib Dem MP Wera Hobhouse said she was "disturbed by the initial aggression of some Tory members in this debate."

"We need to listen to those who have lived that experience and recognise it as hurt and not call it politics that is wrong," she added.

But many welcomed the "reasoned" contributions from Conservative MPs Anthony Higginbottom and Steven Baker.

Baker mentioned how he is "viciously trolled by Islamophobes" whenever he stands up for his British Muslim constituents. He urged the government to meet with the MCB and the APPG on British Muslims to accept a definition of Islamophobia.  

The Tories have a policy of not engaging with the MCB.  

"It’s been a very feisty debate and it’s quite clear that concerns about anti-Muslim hatred transcend party lines," Badenoch opened her speech with.

She said she would meet the APPG officers and listed what the government is doing to tackle Islamophobia. " I'm not afraid of using the phrase Islamophobia. We're not going to have a semantic argument. But there are good reasons why we refer to anti-Muslim hatred," said the Tory minister.  

Badenoch admitted that “things have been slow” when it comes to acting on Islamophobia, adding that there will be "a different change of tone and pace with me as faith minister."

A few MPs talked about the conflation of terrorism and Islam in discussions. Later in her speech, Badenoch said the murder of Sir David Amess and added that it was done by "someone claiming to act on behalf of Islam."

Qureshi chastised Badenoch for adding that line: "She started her speech by using a trope about Muslims and terrorism, yet she is meant to be talking about Islamophobia."

Acknowledgement: Islam Channel

Courtesy@Islam Channel

 

Afzal Khan Secured Debate on Islamophobia in the British Parliament

 

Afzal Khan Shadow Leader of the House Secured Debate

on Islamophobia in the House of Commons

Dr Mozammel Haque

 

Afzal Khan Labour Member of Manchester, Gorton and Shadow Leader of the House of Commons secured a debate on Islamophobia and the House has considered Islamophobia Awareness Month in the Westminster Hall, House of Commons, on Wednesday, 24 November 2021. Afzal Khan, MP, made a 10-minute speech outlining the different problems that the Muslim community has been facing. He said, “The issue is not that the hon. Gentleman has two employees who are Muslim or that he has friends who are Muslim; the issue is that we have a Government who are failing to tackle this problem and the hon. Gentleman is a Member of that Government and needs to tackle the problem as well.”

Afzal Khan 

Manchester, Gorton, Labour Member started by saying,“When I go home and look at my grandchildren, I see limitless potential that deserves to flourish and thrive, yet I find it heartbreaking that they must grow up in a world where racism is still present—they will be subject to racism purely because of their faith—and that I, as their grandfather, must stand up to talk about the rampant Islamophobia in our midst. This month is an opportunity for us all to tackle that insidious hatred, which manifests itself in hate crime, discrimination and loss of opportunity.”

 He said, “As I look around the Chamber, I am touched by the support of my hon. Friends from all parts of the House who have committed to rooting out racism, whichever form it takes. I hosted a drop-in event in collaboration with the Muslim Council of Britain and Amnesty International last week, and it was brilliant to see the cross-party support. I thank the many hon. Members present today for attending.”

Paul Blomfield 

Paul Blomfield, Labour Member for Sheffield Central, asked, “The information shared with us by the Muslim Council of Britain last week was very powerful indeed, and reflects the experience that many of us have heard about from our Muslim constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to take responsibility for engaging effectively with the MCB to tackle the issue?”

Afzal Khan 

Afzal Khan replied, “Yes, I agree, and I will be making that point. I had the privilege of visiting Europe’s first eco-mosque in Cambridge—a real trailblazer in the community. It highlights how effective the British Muslim community has been in tackling the climate crisis with a positive and inspiring message. I extend an invitation to the Minister. I cannot promise that a visit will be as thrilling as Peppa Pig World, but it is worth a visit.”

Jim Shannon 

Jim Shannon, DUP Member for Strongford, said, “I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. Does he agree that there is more to be done to ensure that our children grow together in harmony, celebrating the differences that we share, which make us stronger when added to the similarities? That makes us communities. Furthermore, does he believe that one way to achieve that is to facilitate cross-community events that focus on young people of different backgrounds coming together to learn more, to understand more and, inevitably, to accept more about each other, so that we are better together?”

Afzal Khan 

Afzal Khan replied, “For 2.7 million Muslims, Islamophobia has distressing and real-life implications. A recent example is the far right peddling the narrative during the pandemic that British Muslims were super-spreaders of covid simply by practising their faith. As a result, Muslim communities suffered a shocking 40% increase in online Islamophobia during this period, according to Tell MAMA. The online safety Bill is an opportunity for the Government to better regulate online content, including harmful and racist material.”

Catherine West 

Catherine West, Labour Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, said, “I thank my hon. Friend for accepting my intervention, and for all his work—and indeed that of other Members—on this important issue in the House. Does he agree that the issue is not just about online abuse, but that sports can play a role? I know he will go on to this topic, but with the Ashes ahead of us, surely now is the time to tackle Islamophobia in cricket, once and for all.”

Afzal Khan 

Afzal Khan replied, “I thank my hon. Friend. Again, that is a point I will touch on. I have no doubt that those of us who participate in this debate will be on the receiving end of further abuse. Social media platforms have a moral responsibility and a duty to protect their users. Here, a definition of Islamophobia will help establish a mechanism for accountability and improved regulation. I will return to the definition in a moment, but can the Minister outline what measures will be introduced by the Government to keep users safe online, and what steps are being taken to tackle far-right activity?”

He mentioned, “It would be a mistake, however, to see this as merely an online phenomenon. The Government’s own figures reveal, once again, that Muslims have been victim to the highest proportion of all hate crimes committed this past year. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and I have written to the Conservative party chair over the surge in hate crimes against Muslims following the Liverpool attack. Time and again, we see the conflation of Islam and terrorism, which is wrong and perpetuates a harmful stereotype of Muslims.”

Afzal Khan also said, “Last week, Azeem Rafiq’s powerful and moving testimony about his experience in cricket shone a light on how easily racism and Islamophobia can go unchecked and be simply dismissed as “banter”. A series of attacks on mosques, including in Manchester and east London, demand serious action by the Government. Most recently, a man was convicted of terrorism offences after planning an attack on a mosque in Scotland. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to better safeguard places of worship?”

He mentioned, “Crucially, we must remember that these are not isolated incidents. Home Office data supports this, showing that referrals to Prevent for extreme right-wing ideology have increased exponentially. Many of my parliamentary colleagues and I have pushed for an independent review of the Prevent strategy for several years. A coalition of more than 450 Muslim organisations has boycotted the Government’s review of Prevent in protest at the appointment of William Shawcross as its chair. Shawcross has openly expressed a hostile view of Islam and Muslims, including suggesting that—I quote—“Islamic fascism” was the biggest problem facing our society.”

Labour Member for Manchester Gorton said, “I want to put four questions to the Minister today. Will she outline why the Government appointed someone with Islamophobic views? Will she respond to the overwhelming discontent over Shawcross’s appointment? Will she explain why the Government refuses to engage with the MCB, the largest Muslim organisation in the UK? Who sits on the Government’s anti-Muslim hatred working group, and has she ever met the group?”

He said, “The appointment of William Shawcross is just a symptom of something that must be addressed in this debate: the Conservative party’s Islamophobia crisis. In 2018, we held a general debate on Islamophobia, in which I delivered the Labour party’s position. Two years later, no meaningful progress has been made and the Government have failed to take any action on this issue.”

Nadia Whittome 

Nadia Whittome, Labour Member for Nottingham East, said, “I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate. Does he agree that the Prime Minister likening Muslim women to letterboxes and bank robbers directly fuels Islamophobia—I have seen it myself, as a former hate crime worker—and that apologising for offence caused is not good enough? The Prime Minister must apologise for what he said and, more importantly, engage with the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims and take some real action, starting with adopting the definition for Islamophobia.”

Afzal Khan 

Afzal Khan replied, “I thank my hon. Friend, and I agree. The APPG on British Muslims has worked tirelessly to create the definition of Islamophobia, which has the confidence of more than 800 organisations and has been adopted by Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, the Green party and even the Scottish Conservatives, as well as the Mayors of London and Greater Manchester and hundreds of councils across the country. I applaud the aforementioned for taking that positive step.”

He also mentioned, “Defining and naming a problem is the first step in rooting it out, but it seems that the Government cannot even bring themselves to use the term Islamophobia. How do they intend to deal with a problem that they cannot even name? In fact, I challenge the Minister to use the term Islamophobia today.

Afzal Khan said, “The truth is that the Conservative party has repeatedly shown it is in denial about this problem through its failure to accept the definition proposed by the APPG, its failure to conduct a truly independent investigation and its failure to appoint Government advisers on the issue. What concerns me is that the Tory party has an institutional problem. Frankly, it does not care about Islamophobia.

He mentioned, “The Singh review revealed institutional failings in how the Conservative party handled Islamophobia complaints. However, the review failed to engage with any Conservative Muslim parliamentarians and, once again, it did not even acknowledge or mention the term Islamophobia. Given that the definition has such widespread community support, can I ask the Minister why the Government insist on reinventing the wheel?

He said, “All of this goes right to the top. We all remember the Prime Minister’s shocking comment about Muslim women and letterboxes, but what is less well known is the fact that his comment directly resulted in a 375% rise in hate crime against Muslims. To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister continues to ignore the issue. During last year’s Islamophobia Awareness Month, I wrote to the Prime Minister to urge him to take action and to meet with me and key Muslim organisations. More than a year later, I am still waiting for a reply. I raised the matter in the Chamber earlier this month, and Mr Speaker and I both agreed that it is totally unacceptable for the Prime Minister to simply ignore letters from Members, no matter the subject. The Muslim community in our country deserves better: it deserves an explanation and, frankly, an apology.

Afzal Khan said, “The theme of this year’s Islamophobia Awareness Month is “Time for change”, and it is time for change. It is time the Government changed their approach towards Islamophobia and tackled it head on. Whether we look at evidence from the McGregor-Smith review, the Lawrence review or the Lammy review, we are confronted with the unavoidable fact that Islamophobia has damaging consequences on the life chances and equality of Muslims across the UK.

Florence Eshalomi 

Florence Eshalomi, Lab/Co-op Member for Vauxhall, said, “I thank my hon. Friend for making such an excellent speech on this really important issue, which affects so many of my constituents in Vauxhall. On his point about the Muslim community being affected, he will know that Muslims have suffered disproportionately throughout the covid pandemic, and yet they were the ones helping at mosques. Does he agree that it is really important that we have leadership from the top, including that apology from the Prime Minister?”

Afzal Khan 

Afzal Khan replied, “I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I agree—that is exactly what we need. Perhaps, at the end, that is what I will ask as well.”

He said, “ At the heart of the APPG’s inquiry into a working definition of Islamophobia was an attempt to do something about the nature, scale and impact of Islamophobia. As political representatives, we have a responsibility to listen to the voices of all in our communities and strive to serve them to the best of our abilities. Representing British Muslims requires more than just lip service: it requires commitment, leadership and, most importantly, action.

James Daly 

James Daly, Conservative Member for Bury North asked, “It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I know the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), and I would consider him a friend. We speak regularly. I am disappointed that a debate on a very important subject has turned into the normal political attack on the Conservative party. To hear the sanctimony of an organisation that was investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for prejudice and antisemitism in lecturing this party on prejudice is something.”

 

He said, “We can talk about the definition of prejudice, but it is within ourselves. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton knows two people who work for me; one is certainly my best friend. I am a Conservative Back-Bench MP who does not see a difference in human beings because of their religion, faith or anything. I see the decency in people and that is what motivates me in politics. It is what motivates Shahbaz and Khalid. At least two Members opposite know those two people who have given years of service to my area and its community. To be tarred with what has just been said—the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton knows it is not correct.”

 

James Daly also mentioned, “I fight every day in my constituency to ensure that my Muslim constituents have the best possible representation. When we talk about Islamophobia, I would like Labour MPs to support me in practical policies to help with the various issues that affect the Muslim community. There are lots of important issues, but I will talk about just one. In my seat and the seats of the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Manchester, Gorton, just about every Muslim family is touched by a taxi driver who works there—families who are absolutely dependent on that income. When I contact the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Bolton South and say, “Let’s set up an APPG for taxi driving in Greater Manchester,” and they say, “No, we can’t do that for political reasons,” it is therefore extremely disappointing. We could actually put in place practical policies—"

Afzal Khan 

Afzal Khan concluded, “I have just made a 10-minute speech outlining the different problems that the Muslim community has been facing. The issue is not that the hon. Gentleman has two employees who are Muslim or that he has friends who are Muslim; the issue is that we have a Government who are failing to tackle this problem and the hon. Gentleman is a Member of that Government and needs to tackle the problem as well.”

 

 

Conservative Lord Ranbir Singh Suri on

Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords

 

Dr Mozammel Haque

Conservative Lord Ranbir Singh Suri on Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords on 22 October 2021.

Lord Ranbir Singh Suri My Lords, I refer to the Assisted Dying Bill debated in the House of Lords on 16 January 2015, when my noble friend Lord Tebbit sought to settle the matter at hand by quoting the generally accepted definition of suicide from the Oxford English Dictionary:

“suicide, n. The … act of taking one’s own life, self-murder”.

He went on to say: “Can we settle the matter now?”—[Official Report, 16/01/15; col. 1017.]

Lord Suri said, “Suicide is just not self-murder. It is more than that: it is a crime against our maker, almighty God, and nature. This should not be the choice of the terminally ill patient. We have to accept the will of almighty God. The holy scripture of Sikhism says that whosoever has come into this world has to go on their allotted day. Terminology and technicalities should not be the ammunition to carry out the execution.”

Lord Suri said, “We are obliged on moral grounds to prevent assisted dying and should not aid a terminally person wishing to die by facilitating them to give away the right to administer their own death. We should not use feelings and compassion as the catalyst in deciding to take the life of a terminally ill patient.”

Lord Suri mentioned, “Progress in every industry is continuously being made through new inventions and ideas, whether it is medical, engineering or the quest to travel further into the galaxy. It should be of paramount interest for medical science to adhere to and honour human morals in the pursuit to stop assisted dying and endorse research into developing ways to improve a terminally ill person’s quality of life and reduce suffering—the preservation of life as opposed to the termination of it.”

Lord Suri concluded, “We should not take advantage of somebody’s vulnerability and interfere with the psychological implications of assisted dying, which have an impact on not just the patient but those who care for them, be they family, friends or carers. We do not have the right to take anyone’s life. That is a decision taken by God only. Medical ethics do a great service to society; they have always protected life and endeavoured to prolong it. The taking of a human life in any way is morally, ethically, religiously and humanistically wrong. Dignity in dying should be respected in all circumstances, as I have read in the many letters and emails I have received.”

 

Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon Opposes the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords

 

Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon Opposes

The Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords

 Dr Mozammel Haque

Cross Bench Life Peer Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon opposed the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords on 22 October 2021. He said, “True compassion not only makes life meaningful for both giver and recipient but, importantly, also nudges society as a whole in a more positive ethical direction. It is for these reasons that I oppose the Bill.”

Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon, said, “My Lords, today we live in an increasingly selfish and uncaring society, in which euphemisms such as “assisted dying” for “assisted suicide” and, unbelievably, “compassion” have all been used to justify a Bill that I believe demeans society and pressurises the vulnerable to take their own lives.”

Lord Indarjit Singh said, “The moral slide ahead is clearly visible. In the Netherlands, assisted death is routinely extended to include the disabled, those with chronic, non-terminal conditions and those with mental health problems such as dementia and depression. The suffering of the vulnerable is made worse by those close, making it obvious that their care is an unwanted chore, particularly by some who stand to inherit property or assets. That was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who has shown years of loving care and compassion to his injured and disabled wife. During the debate on the 2013 Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that legislating for assisted suicide “creates too much financial incentive for the taking of life.”—[Official Report, 18/7/14; col. 789.]

Such pressures are difficult to pick up by doctors and judges.

Lord Indarjit Singh mentioned, “We are all aware of the problem of climate change, but much less aware of a deteriorating moral climate—a growing selfishness seen in daily news of violence against the weak and vulnerable.”

Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon said, “Assisting in the killing of our fellow human beings has been condemned by leaders of all our major faiths, including, as we have heard, the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Statistics remind us that it is not physical pain but a feeling of being unwanted and a burden on others that leads to mental suffering and a wish to die. We have heard conflicting stories about the different views of religions. In the story of the good Samaritan, Jesus Christ reminds us of our common responsibility to help in alleviating the suffering of our fellow beings. In Sikhism, the young Guru Nanak spent money given by his father for investment on food for the starving. Loving care for others, even to the enemy in battle, is central to Sikh teaching.

Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon concluded, “Finally, I mention the misuse of the word compassion —unbelievably, used to advance the Bill. The literal meaning of “compassion” is to show in loving care that we understand and share in another’s suffering. True compassion not only makes life meaningful for both giver and recipient but, importantly, also nudges society as a whole in a more positive ethical direction. It is for these reasons that I oppose the Bill.”

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Opposes the Assisted Dying Bill In the House of Lords

 

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Opposes the Assisted

Dying Bill in the House of Lords

Dr. Mozammel Haque

 

Lord Curry of Kirkharle opposed the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords on 22 October 2021. He said, “My Lords, I, too, am deeply concerned about this Bill and oppose it.” He also added, “We live in an imperfect, fallen world. Support for this Bill will not make it perfect. In closing, I challenge the interpretation of theology given by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. Christ’s death was not assisted. He voluntarily offered up his life and it was the purpose for which he came.”

Lord Curry said, “My Lords, I, too, am deeply concerned about this Bill and oppose it. Let me give yet another very personal insight into why I am concerned. Eight years ago, my wife and I held the hands of our daughter, aged 42, who had a learning disability, while she passed from time into eternity. She breathed her last while we held her hands. It was a very emotional and precious moment for us. It was not an experience that one ever envisages when bringing a child into the world.”

Lord Curry mentioned, “Six years before that, she was very ill with pneumonia and other complications and was not expected to survive. We sat with her day and night as she struggled and battled to live. The medical staff had done what they could. Nothing more could be done. It was extremely distressing and we were torn between wishing for her to pull through and thinking that perhaps the best solution might be for her to slip quietly away so that her pain and suffering could be over.”

Lord Curry said, “If someone at that time had offered an assisted dying—assisted suicide—option, I firmly believe that in our heightened emotional state, not thinking rationally, we may have been tempted to agree to her premature death. Had we done that, it would have troubled us for the rest of our lives.”

He also said, “Remarkably, she pulled through. It was a long, hard slog, but she enriched our lives for another six years, enjoyed her own life and continued to influence hundreds of people during that time. What a tragedy it would have been had her life been cut short six years too early. That is exactly what will happen if this Bill is supported. There will be a few in the first year and a few hundred in future years who feel that they have become a burden on their families and society and will be killed off prematurely because it will become the simple, easy option.”

Lord Curry concluded, “I fear that this country will become a society that terminates the lives of its old people and its sick and disabled people because they fear they are being a burden to their loved ones and because of the time and the cost of their care. I have the same letter that the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, referred to, where a doctor wrote very eloquently. I want to repeat that phrase: “Doctors are very poor at predicting when people will die.”

We live in an imperfect, fallen world. Support for this Bill will not make it perfect. In closing, I challenge the interpretation of theology given by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. Christ’s death was not assisted. He voluntarily offered up his life and it was the purpose for which he came.

 

 

Lord Adonis Opposes the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords

 

Labour Peer Lord Adonis On

Assisted Dying Bill In the House of Lords

 

Dr Mozammel Haque

Labour Peer Lord Andrew Adonis’s opposed the Assissted Dying Bill in the House of Lords on 22 October 2021.

Labour Peer Lord Adonis opposed the Assisted Dying Bill. He said, “My Lords, I am opposed to this Bill, although I accept that it is a desperately difficult issue; like other noble Lords, I have heart-rending experiences of the long, drawn-out deaths of friends and relatives.”

Labour Peer Lord Adonis said, “The problem with the Bill is that it is simply not possibly to guard adequately against the abuse of the very elderly and the very ill by greedy and manipulative relations and friends. The idea that brief consultations with two doctors are adequate is simply not credible. I accept that it does extend autonomy—autonomy which I might personally value—to those of sound mind who are unpressurised about ending their life. Of course I accept that, which is why this is such a desperately difficult issue. But the supreme duty of the state and the community is to protect the vulnerable and their human rights. There is no greater human right than the right to life. Therefore, very reluctantly, I come to the conclusion that this Bill—or indeed any Bill seeking to achieve this objective—is not one to which Parliament should give assent.”