Norway and Denmark approached the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) “to protest substantial changes” made to a document arising from a UK-hosted conference on freedom of religion and belief, which opened by Liz Truss earlier this time. month, the Guardian has learned. More than 20 countries, including those now protesting, had signed the original text, which included a commitment to repeal any laws that “allow harmful practices or restrict women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights and bodily autonomy.” But those phrases were removed from a later version of the international pact, which is currently online and has been signed by six countries, including the UK and Malta, where abortion is illegal. The country was not one of the original signatories. In an open letter to Truss, the foreign secretary and Tory leadership candidate, published on Friday, more than 20 human rights, pro-choice and international aid groups called on the government to immediately reverse the deletions and explain why they were done. . “At a time when abortion provision around the world is under serious threat due to the overturning of Roe v Wade, it has never been more important for the UK Government to stand up for sexual and reproductive health and rights and bodily autonomy,” he wrote . organizations including Humanists UK, British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), MSI Reproductive Choices and Amnesty International UK. Expressing “serious concern” about the changes, they added: “We urge you to reverse this move and hope you can explain why the change happened in the first place.” The International Ministerial Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) took place in early July in London. The Prime Minister’s Special Envoy to the FoRB, Conservative MP Fiona Bruce, was heavily involved in the event. Bruce is co-chair of the all-party caucus of pro-life MPs. The document in question emerged from a conference hosted in the UK on freedom of religion and belief earlier this month. Photo: Courtesy of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office The resulting, amended, declaration on gender equality commits to challenge “discriminatory laws that justify, condone or reinforce violence, discrimination or inequality based on religion, belief or sex and that limit the full and equal enjoyment of women and of the girls of human rights”. It makes no mention of sexual or reproductive rights or bodily autonomy. In a statement to the Guardian, a Norwegian foreign ministry spokesman said: “Norway and Denmark have approached the UK and the Netherlands, who are the chair and co-chair respectively of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance (IRFBA), to ask and object to material changes in the statement and the manner in which the changes were made.” He added: “Norway has not yet taken a decision on whether to sign the amended version of the declaration.” Denmark’s foreign ministry declined to comment. Asked whether the Netherlands would sign the latest version of the statement, a Dutch foreign ministry spokesman said: “We are assessing the situation, together with like-minded [countries].” Marie Juul Petersen, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for Human Rights who was close to the process of drafting the first statement, said the second version of the text was “a big surprise” and a big disappointment. “I saw the initial statement as such a big step forward because it was a very contentious area – the relationship between freedom of religion and belief and gender equality. For so many years, not many attempts have been made to find synergies and overlaps or to demonstrate how these two sets of rights are actually compatible and in fact interrelated and inseparable. And I thought that statement was really a big step forward in that direction, showing that these two rights are not at odds with each other, but can actually reinforce each other. So I was really disappointed.” Petersen said she expected the UK, as host of the conference, to fix the problem, criticizing the process by which the declaration was amended as “flawed and illogical”. Andrew Copson, chief executive of Humanists UK, also said the government was obliged to withdraw the amendments. “The government must surely be aware that, given recent events in the United States, abortion rights are under threat. Amending an agreed statement in such a way, omitting these rights, is therefore particularly ill-timed,” he said. “Unfortunately, this substitution of individual freedom under the guise of ‘religious freedom’ is an example of the abuse of the right to freedom of religion or belief in order to violate the rights of others.” Bekky Ashmore of Plan International UK, who also sent a letter of complaint to Truss about the redraft, said: “The UK Government has long been a supporter of SRHR [Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights] and gender equality globally, and we are concerned that with this move the government is failing to live up to its commitments to “boldly defend and advance SRHR for all”. FCDO has been approached for comment.
