HC Deb 23 July 1962 vol 663 cc1202-12

4.8 a.m.

Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I am sorry to keep the House, but I wish to raise a matter that is one which should attract the attention of the Government.

Perhaps it is significant that this question is being raised at this hour of the morning for it was the time at which, very often, those engaged in the horrific acts of the crime of genocide called at the doorstep of innocent men, women, and children, deprived them of their liberty, and took them away without anybody knowing. They were taken to torture chambers and, ultimately, to concentration camps. Those who committed these crimes killed with impunity millions of people. So perhaps it is appropriate that we should discuss this subject at this time of the day.

I was very disturbed when I read the reply which was given, after many years of consideration by the Government, on the question of accession to the Convention on Genocide. The man who introduced the term "genocide," Dr. Raphael Lemkin, had lost all his relatives in concentration camps; his whole family had been wiped out. I believe that there were very many of them. Dr. Lemkin was determined to introduce a preventive measure which would make it impossible for similar barbaric acts to occur in the future.

The words used by Mr. W. J. Dignam, the Australian representative at the General Assembly in 1948, ought to be very carefully considered when we are dealing with this subject. He said: Neither animals nor uneducated savages would deliberately plan with the fiendish and cold-blooded cruelty which accompanies modern examples of genocide. Hardened soldiers, accustomed to the callousness and brutalities of war, were overwhelmed when they witnessed for the first time the physical deterioration of some of those victims still living after this crime had been perpetrated against them. This applied to the cold-blooded extermination of millions of people. It is difficult to speak on the subject without emotion. I recall raising these matters in the House before the last war, when there was a civil administration in Germany and when the Nazis first reared their ugly heads. I made statements in the House which I knew to be true but which I feared were so full of horrific facts that they would not be believed. I had met many victims who had suffered and who had come over here to explain, in secret, what was happening. I knew that these atrocities were taking place, but it was not within my power, nor that of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who also spoke on these matters, to convince the House that something must be done to prevent the outrages against civilisation which otherwise would inevitably follow from the preaching of the doctrine of Nazism.

Only a few days ago we had in Britain the amazing spectacle of people declaring themselves to be Nazis and saying that Hitler, the arch-criminal, the high priest of the doctrine of torture, murder and destruction, was a man whose policy we should be proud to follow. It seams incredible that this brutal, subhuman principle should be accepted. I do not know how anyone can explain this strange abnormality. These men disturb the peace of Trafalgar Square, and innocent men and women who seek peaceful enjoyment there are subjected to vicious attacks on their conscience. How can we expect ex-Service men, or men and women who have been in concentration camps, in particular, to listen to these violent attacks on their moral and mental outlook and do nothing about it? They would have to be superhuman. I do not think that flesh and blood can stand it. Yet these Nazis are coming into our squares and again preaching Hitler's doctrines, and which everyone now knows advocated and led to genocide.

Let us face that fact. This is not a matter of putting forward a principle of a political nature. It is not a political doctrine, and this is where the hon. Gentleman and I will probably be at variance with each other. In my contention, and in the contention of 65 nations—nay, in the contention of all the nations in the United Nations because it was accepted without a single dissentient—the Convention correctly states categorically that this is not a political matter. It is a crime against humanity.

I hope that the time will come—and in the not too distant future—when we shall all realise that doctrines of this nature cannot be called political doctrines. How can they be? Would we willingly allow a set of murderers or advocates of murder to join forces and come into our squares and streets to preach the doctrine of murder? Of course we would not, but that is precisely what is happening, and that is why those of us who have taken an interest in the subject of preventing genocide and have seen it going through its various stages—the Declaration, and later the Convention, and now the stage of waiting for the Government to accede to it—are horrified at the thought that excuses are being sought, not for putting the Convention into effect, but for refusing to accede to it.

What is the problem? There is an article which enables a Government or country to introduce modifications if it wishes to do so. It is about thirteen years since this matter was first discussed, and I have raised it on a number of occasions during the past twelve years. The Government have not sought ways and means of modifying the Convention, if modification was necessary, although a procedure is provided for doing that. If we accede to it we shall be in a position to modify it in some form which will enable us to overcome any doubts that we may have in regard even to putting into effect the point of view held, in my view wrongly, by the Government. We have not taken advantage of that, nor, indeed, does it appear that we are proposing to do so.

The Government made a statement condemning genocide, and suppose that we ought to be grateful to them—if gratitude is the right sentiment in these circumstances. In reply to a Question which I asked, the Government strongly condemned the act of genocide and all connected with it and declared themselves in accord with the sentiments of those who desired to outlaw it and with their objectives, but—and this is the crux of the difficulty—they sought to avoid the natural consequences of these statements by saying that they could not accede to the Convention because the effect of Article VII is that, if we acceded to the Convention, it would be necessary to amend the Extradition Acts so as to suspend extradition for a political offence in any case where the crime alleged was genocide itself as defined in Article 11 of the Convention, or any of the related offences described in Article III. I do not understand this contention. The term "genocide" is clear. It says categorically that it is a crime against a race. There is no doubt about its being a crime. It is a crime, and that is the end of the matter in so far as definition and approach are concerned. If it is a crime and is so acknowledged to be and condemned accordingly, how can the Government be heard to say that if the crime of genocide is committed there is a political reason for avoiding extradition? I do not understand this argument.

If a murder is committed, the person responsible is extradited. If a man has been an accessory to murder, we are in a position to extradite him. If he contemplates or advocates murder, it is clear that no question of politics comes into it, but if a set of people adopt mass murder as their principle, with no political significance by way of civil war or anything of that sort, and devote themselves to advocating murder, and torture preceding murder, there seems to be some difficulty, according to the Government, about the question of extradition because it might be a political matter.

This will not do. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the whole question and to look at it from the point of view of what they themselves declare they believe to be the position. The quotation I made earlier ends with the words: The Government are satisfied also that, should a person accused of such a crime committed elsewhere be found in this country, he could and would—subject to the observations which I made earlier about the possibility of its being a 'political offence'—be dealt with in the same way as any other fugitive criminal." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1962; Vol. 663, c. 423–4.] But how can genocide be a political offence? I repeat, how can one regard the advocacy of murder of that nature as being associated with the term "political", respectable or not in its connotation?

The fact is that it is an instigation to destroy human beings and is followed by such destruction. After what we have experienced, it is no good people who commit genocide whether principals or followers pretending that they did not intend to do so. I remember that years ago books were distributed in this country by the Nazis in three languages purporting to be a combination of declarations by Jewish people and others that not a hair of anybody's head had been or would be touched. This vicious, lying propaganda is being circulated today in precise terms by those who are advocating genocide and who are pretending that they do not intend the inevitable consequences of their preachings. I do not understand why we cannot avail ourselves of Article VI, which reads: Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those ' Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction. I know what the answer probably will be, that there is no such court, and the International Court has no power in criminal matters. But why not let us take a lead in putting this right? We have nothing to fear. We as a nation are a democratic nation.

I may be told that we should not bother our heads too much about this, because if a crime of this nature is committed it will obviously be punished. I am not so sure about that. I am not so sure that those brutes who stand up and utilise the same language that the Nazis used, and are themselves declared Nazis, are not committing the crime of genocide. According to Article III, the crime includes Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; complicity in genocide. Why do we not accept the Convention and then let the International Court or some other court of an international nature deal with the question of whether genocide is proved or not?

I know of the Government's anxiety, of course. I assume that I shall be told that genocide may not have been committed, that somebody may want to extradite someone to some country where he is wanted for another political offence, that the crime has not been proved, and all the rest of it. But here is an opportunity of providing for a proper trial by an independent count. Why should not a person be tried for the offence and, if found guilty, extradited if necessary? I do not think that there is anything in the suggestion which interferes with our present rules relating to extradition. I cannot emphasise too often that this is not a political matter. Genocide is sheer murder and the advocacy of murder.

I listened some time ago to part of the trial in Jerusalem of Eichmann. Nobody could have beard without bursting into tears, as many of us did, the accounts of the horrifying acts which were committed, such as the dashing out of children's brains on pavements. The evidence was not contested by the defence. The acts were those of advocates of genocide. The "high priest" of genocide, Hitler, is today being eulogised in the highest terms by his present-day followers, who use every device to mislead crowds in the streets and to spread their venomous doctrines.

Now is the time, of all times, when the Government should endeavour to do something definite about this. We are looked upon by the rest of the world as leaders on moral principles, in moral and political issues. What are the 65 nations, which have accepted this Convention, including members of our own Commonwealth, going to say to us if we refuse to accede to the Convention? Everybody knows that wherever one goes in the world people look upon our country as still being well in the forefront in advocating and practising on moral issues. How can we expect those 65 nations—including our own closest allies and friends and intimate connections—to regard us with anything but disrespect when we do not accept what they have accepted, and what their legal authorities obviously have told them is in order, but, instead, make some kind of legal excuse?

I know very well that the Joint Under-Secretary, and his colleagues at the Foreign Office, and other Ministers are deeply distressed and really understand what a shocking thing this crime of genocide is, but rather than finding excuses for not acceding, I beg them to reconsider the matter so that our real status on such a moral issue may be high, so that we may continue to be respected, and so that other nations cannot say, "You are looking for an excuse rather than finding a method by which you can put into effect something of the highest importance to the welfare of the world."

The people who are affected need us. Do not let us misunderstand the situation. Those who have been affected by crimes of genocide and who, by God's mercy, are still alive, always regard us as being their protectors against that kind of thing. I ask the forgiveness of the House for having taken, perhaps, too much time at this hour, but I appeal to the Government to reconsider the matter, and not to make a statement tonight which closes the door on accession to the Convention.

4.32 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas)

Perhaps I can begin by quoting the be-ginning of the statement which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT when he made his announcement on 18th July that Her Majesty's Government had decided not to accede to the Genocide Convention. The statement begins: Her Majesty's Government fully accept the spirit of the Genocide Convention and wholeheartedly support its objects but, after long and earnest consideration, and with great regret, they have reached the conclusion that the United Kingdom should not accede to it. Before I explain why Her Majesty's Government took that decision, I should like to say that I fully understand, and sympathise with, the disappointment of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir B. Janner), at the outcome of that decision, but I am sure that he, for his part, will understand and accept that Her Majesty's Government would never have decided against accession to a Convention aimed at outlawing such an odious crime without the most thorough and searching examination of the whole question. We would never have come to this decision had we not been finally convinced that the arguments against accession outweighed those in favour of it.

My right hon. Friend's statement also contained these words: In making known their decision not to accede to the Convention the Government wish to reaffirm their utter abhorrence of the crime of genocide and their determination that those who commit it should be brought to justice, and to give an unqualified assurance that Her Majesty's Government would never themselves violate the principles embodied in the Convention ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1962; Vol. 663, c. 423.] When the House last debated this question,, I explained at some length the difficulty that had hitherto prevented this and previous Governments, including that of the party opposite, from acceding to this Convention. The hon. Gentleman said then that he understood the legal difficulties, but he expressed the view that after eleven years they should have been resolved. I promised that we should press on with our considerations of the matter and that the House would be informed as soon as a decision had been taken.

In considering this question there are a number of aspects to be borne in mind. One is the effect accession to the Convention might have in relation to offences which might be committed in this country. Thus is a matter which the hon. Gentleman referred to at some length. Although genocide as such is not a criminal offence in this country, inasmuch as the word "genocide" does mot appear on the Statute Book, most of the offences which are within the definition of genocide in the Convention are. If, as is hardly conceivable, any such crime as is usually connoted by the term "genocide" were committed in the United Kingdom, the perpetrator could and would be punished under the ordinary criminal law. Moreover, if a person accused of such a crime committed outside Britain were to be found in this country he could and would be dealt with in the same way as any other fugitive criminal, subject only to the possibility of it being a political offence as explained in the statement which was circulated by my right hon. Friend.

This leads me to the practical point on which the whole matter turns, namely, the obligation which accession to the Convention might impose upon us in respect of genocide committed abroad. It is settled principle that the United Kingdom will not become a party to a Convention unless she can fully accept the legally binding obligations which she will assume by becoming a party to it. This means that, unless we can carry out the provisions of the Convention to the letter under our domestic law, legislation must be introduced in order to make quite certain that once we have become a party we shall be able to carry out its provisions. This is the background to the Whole problem.

As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal explained in the statement last Wednesday, the reason for Her Majesty's Government's decision stems from Article VII of the Convention, which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I should Like to read it for the record.

The Article reads as follows: Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force. It is the interpretation of this Article that has been the main obstacle to accession for successive Governments in this country. The question that had to be decided was this: would it be necessary if the United Kingdom decided to become a party to the Convention to amend the Extradition Act, 1870, to provide that an offence of genocide should not be regarded as an offence of a political character and by so doing to limit the traditional right of this country to grant political asylum?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we were advised—and it was mentioned in the statement of the Lord Privy Seal— that the effect of Article VII is that if we acceded to the Convention it would be necessary to amend the Extradition Act so as to suspend the operation of the safeguard against extradition for a political offence in any case where the crime alleged was genocide itself as defined by Article II of the Convention or any of the related offences described in Article III.

Article II says: genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such: (a) Killing members of the group "— That is a simple one— (b) Causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group". I can understand that that may be capable of definition within the ambit of British law and possibly we could absorb that into the criminal code, but Article III goes further. It says: The following acts shall be punishable:

  1. (a) Genocide;
  2. (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
  3. (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
  4. (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
  5. (e) Complicity in genocide ".
I mention this because I think that the hon. Member, as a lawyer, will accept that Articles I and II have a somewhat vague terminology. He will accept, will he not, that, under Article III (c), if, in the heat of a political speech, a coloured man in Africa said, "Kill all the whites" he would have committed an act which was incitement to commit genocide?

Sir B. Janner

The hon. Gentleman is straining at a gnat there. The point is that the incitement to genocide would not depend upon a statement of that nature inasmuch as it was not intended that that should incite people to kill. I think that he is giving a very extreme example of an occasional statement made by an individual. Statements by individuals that they believe in and advocate Nazism, which means killing, is something very different. I do not think that there is this difficulty.

Mr. Thomas

I am quoting an example: Direct and public incitement to commit genocide is, in fact, a punishable offence under Article III. Anybody who had committed that crime could not in fact, even if he were doing it in a political speech, under this Convention claim the right of asylum in a country which was a contracting party. I mention that as an example of the difficulty there is in this crime of genocide.

In those circumstances, it is felt that acceptance of the Convention and the enactment of legislation to make our domestic law conform to the provisions of it would involve a derogation from this country's traditional right to grant political asylum which the Government do not think it right to accept.

The hon. Member asked: could there ever be any circumstances in which this country would wish to grant political asylum to a person accused of genocide within the terms of the Convention? I should say that, genocide being what it is, one cannot ignore the possibility that, for example, offences committed by one racial or other group against another group during political disturbance or civil war, committed by both sides, might afterwards form the subject of an application for the surrender of a fugitive on a charge of genocide.

In such circumstances, it is possible that the authorities in this country would rightly take the view that the offence was of a political character. For this reason, Her Majesty's Government do not think it right to deprive themselves in all circumstances of their traditional right to grant an accused person the protection of the Extradition Act against surrender for a political offence where the charge is one of genocide as defined in the wide and, in some respects, imprecise terms of the Convention.

I repeat that it is with great regret that we have reached this decision, but, in view of the importance that we attach to this country's traditional right to grant asylum to political refugees who seek refuge here, we cannot derogate from that right.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.