The UK government is under increasing pressure from European countries and human rights groups to explain why commitments to abortion and sexual health rights have been removed from an official statement on gender equality .
Norway and Denmark have approached the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) “to protest substantive changes” that were made to a document that resulted from a UK-hosted conference on freedom of religion and belief, opened by Liz Truss earlier this month, the Guardian has learned.
More than 20 countries, including those now complaining, had signed the original text, which included a commitment to repeal any law that “allowed harmful practices, or restricted the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls, l ‘body autonomy’.
But those phrases were removed from a later version of the international pact, which is now online and has been signed by six countries, including the UK and Malta, where abortion is illegal. The country had not been one of the original signatories.
In an open letter to Truss, the foreign secretary and Conservative leadership candidate, published on Friday, more than 20 human rights, pro-choice and international aid groups demanded the government reverse the removals immediately and explain why they were made.
“At a time when abortion provision worldwide is under serious threat, due to the reversal of Roe v Wade, it has never been more important for the UK Government to stand up for sexual health and rights and reproductive and bodily autonomy,” he wrote. organizations including Humanists UK, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), MSI Reproductive Choices and Amnesty International UK.
Expressing “deep 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) was held in London at the beginning of July. The Prime Minister’s Special Envoy to FoRB, Conservative MP Fiona Bruce, was heavily involved in the event. Bruce is Co-Chair of the All Party ‘Pro-Life’ Parliamentary Group.
The document in question emerged from a conference held in the UK on freedom of religion and belief earlier this month. Photograph: courtesy of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
The resulting, amended declaration on gender equality commits to challenging “discriminatory laws that justify, condone or reinforce violence, discrimination or inequalities on grounds of religion, belief or gender and that restrict the full and equal enjoyment of women and 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 chair and co-chair respectively of the International Alliance for Freedom of Religion or Belief (IRFBA), to question and protest substantive changes to the statement and the manner in which the changes were made.”
He added: “Norway has yet to make a decision about becoming a signatory to the amended version of the declaration.”
The Danish 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 people. [countries].”
Canada, which prides itself on its feminist international assistance policy, is also not among the signatories. “Canada is seeking clarification on the process that took place after the conference to amend the original statement and has not signed the new version,” said a spokesman for Global Affairs Canada, James Emmanuel Wanki.
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 original statement as a big step forward because this has been a very contentious area: the relationship between freedom of religion and belief and gender equality. For so many years, there have not been many attempts to find synergies and overlaps or to show how these two sets of rights are actually compatible and in fact intertwined and inseparable. And I thought that statement was really a big step forward in that direction, showing that these two rights are not opposed, but they can reinforce each other. So I was very disappointed.”
Petersen said he hoped the UK, as host of the conference, would fix the problem, criticizing the process by which the declaration was amended as “flawed and unreasonable”.
Andrew Copson, chief executive of Humanists UK, also said the government had a duty to withdraw the amendments.
“The government must be aware that, given recent events in the United States, abortion rights are under threat. To amend an agreed statement in this way, omitting these rights, is therefore particularly ill-timed,” he said.
“Unfortunately, this masquerading of individual freedom under the guise of ‘religious freedom’ is an example of abuses of the right to freedom of religion or belief to infringe on the rights of others.”
Bekky Ashmore of Plan International UK, who has 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 will fall short of its commitments to “bravely defend and advance SRHR for all”.
The FCDO has been approached for comment.