Motions

Ibrahim, Mariam

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:30): I move:

That this house—

(a) expresses it concern at the arrest, imprisonment and prosecution of Mariam Ibrahim;

(b) welcomes the decision of the courts in Sudan to release Mariam Ibrahim; and

(c) calls on the Sudanese government to ensure effective enforcement of its constitution and adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and respect religious freedom.

Today, I rise to discuss this very important issue, this very important fundamental principle, and that is the principle of religious freedom and the principle of pluralism. Over my eight months in this place, I have had a number of students come to me as they visit this place, and I like to take them on a tour, but I try not to give them the civics lesson or the legal studies lesson they would otherwise get.

What I like to show them are a number of things I will think open their mind to a different way of looking at our world. I go to the library and I make a point of looking at the globe that was built in the 1850s, where they can see that there was a time before there was a state of Queensland, where Brisbane was part of New South Wales and there was no Northern Territory. They look at that and go, 'Hang on! So, there was a time before federation and there was a time when things were not always as they are.'

I come into this place and I show them the portrait of Joyce Steele, the first woman who entered parliament. Especially when I tell 15 and 16-year-old young women that there was a time when women were not allowed to vote, they look at me with such incredulity. Their lack of understanding of basic fundamental rights for women I think is fantastic, but it is something that, again, I show them to help open their mind.

I then go round the front and I show them the bust of Don Dunstan, and I tell them that there was a time in South Australia when pubs closed at 6pm on a Saturday afternoon and when men would be at the pub quickly sculling beers before the close in order to stumble home. Again, they look at me like I am some sort of alien from another planet. I show them these things because I want them to realise that the status quo we enjoy here today in this state has not always been so and that, indeed, this state is progressive, that this state evolves, and that we as a society evolve and our laws should reflect that.

In Australia, we should be ever thankful for our independent judiciary. It enforces our laws and ensures, to a large extent, that religious persecution does not happen in this country and that, when it does, it is brought to justice and it is punished, and I think that we should be very thankful for that.

The capital of South Australia is called the city of churches, in some ways courtesy of English novelist Anthony Trollope, not because of the number of churches per se but rather the diverse number of churches he found in 1872. Synagogues, temples, mosques, cathedrals and other religious places of worship can be found throughout Australia's landscape in history, despite being a predominantly Christian society. The good work, especially in charity and support of our most vulnerable, is immeasurable. The principle of religious freedom and the right to worship is fundamental. In a diverse multicultural society, it goes to the very heart of making our country cohesive, peaceful and productive:

Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy regarding diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society. It can indicate one or more of the following:

As the name of the worldview according to which one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.

As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid. This may be considered a form of either toleration…or moral relativism.

This definition, I think, binds us all. This debate and discussion today is not about one religion versus another; indeed, it is about all religions co-existing and being respectful and tolerant of each other.

The reason I bring this issue today is that the founding of the Barossa Valley, the heart of my electorate, was done by those who were escaping religious persecution. Augustus Kavel was a pastor in Prussia in the 1800s and, after disagreements with some edicts by King Frederick William III, was expelled along with his congregation called the Klemzig Congregation for practising their form of Christianity in Prussia.

Pastor Kavel sought to escape the persecution and, as a result, looked to move his congregation to a place that was more welcoming. He saw that there was a beautiful place called Australia that could welcome him and his flock and sought money from the South Australia Company to make this happen, but unfortunately the money was not there. A man who was pushing his cause and the cause of the Lutheran followers quite strongly was a man called George Fife Angas whose descendants still live in the Barossa today and whom I have a great relationship with. George Fife put up the money so that Augustus Kavel and his parishioners could settle here in South Australia and practise their form of Lutheran Christianity and be free and safe from religious persecution.

The experience of those first settlers in the Barossa is still in the mind of Barossans today and this is why this concept that we discuss here this morning is dear to my electorate and it is indeed something worth fighting for. However, freedom from religious persecution is not the norm in many parts of the world. The fight for what we here consider to be a natural part of our society is a foreign concept elsewhere, and I would like to highlight for you two serious cases today.

Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag is a 27-year-old Sudanese woman who was gaoled for apostasy. Mariam was born to a Muslim father and a Christian mother but, being raised by her mother, she took her mother's religion. She since married an American Christian man but, to her accusers, because she married a Christian man she had abandoned her father's religion and was arrested. Leaders worldwide were in unison in condemning her treatment, but I think it was best said by Prime Minister David Cameron in the UK who said, 'The way she is being treated is barbaric and has no place in today's world.'

On 15 May, while heavily pregnant, Mariam was sentenced to death for apostasy after refusing to renounce her Christian faith. She was also sentenced to 100 lashes for adultery because her husband is Christian. Mariam was being held in prison in Khartoum along with her then 20-month old son, Martin, and newborn baby girl, Maya. Her lawyer said she was shackled with heavy chains, even during labour. Mariam had received a reprieve from her sentence until her newborn child was two years old, until her newborn baby no longer needed breastfeeding.

Since I brought the original motion to the house, Mariam was released on 26 June and left Sudan and arrived in Rome on 24 July this year. She was received by Pope Francis in Rome who is the leader of Vatican City and, in conjunction with the Italian government, worked on negotiations to secure the release of Mariam.

This act goes against two very important documents. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights considers the recanting of a person's religion a human right legally protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The committee observes that the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views.

The second document is the Interim Constitution of Sudan which specifies freedom of religion, but this is hard to enforce in the north of the country where, for all intents and purposes, Sharia law is in place. The Interim National Constitution of the Republic of Sudan 2005 states regarding sovereignty:

The Sudan is an all embracing homeland where religions and cultures are sources of strength, harmony and inspiration.

I call on the Sudanese government to put those words into action. It goes on further to talk about freedom of creed and worship as follows:

Every person shall have the right to the freedom of religious creed and worship, and to declare his/her religion or creed and manifest the same, by way of worship, education, practice or performance of rites or ceremonies, subject to requirements of law and public order; no person shall be coerced to adopt such faith, that he/she does not believe in, nor to practice rites or services to which he/she does not voluntarily consent.

Again, I call on the Sudanese government to put practice to those very important words.

I do welcome the release of Ms Ibrahim, but I find it unacceptable that the case went as far as it did. Since the case of Ms Ibrahim has been brought to light, a second case, that of Aaisia Bibi, a Christian woman accused of blasphemy in Lahore, Pakistan in 2010, has received greater international attention. She has also been sentenced to death. Ms Bibi is a farmworker who was convicted of blasphemy. She allegedly made disparaging remarks against the Prophet Muhammad during a confrontation with Muslim co-workers who would not drink the water she brought for them because, being a Christian, she was unclean.

Human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, say that Pakistan's blasphemy law is increasingly being exploited by religious extremists. Those who are sentenced to death do not often receive their punishment, and that is not because they are eventually released. Unfortunately, it is because vigilante groups attack the accused before their death penalty is carried out. In Ms Bibi's case two politicians who were helping her case had been murdered in 2011, after calling for reforms to the blasphemy law and describing her trial as flawed. World and religious leaders, including Barack Obama and former Pope Benedict, have called for clemency. These are but two cases, I think two very striking cases, that need to be highlighted so that we can do our part in bringing about change.

Reading through those two cases make me so very proud and so very lucky to live in a fantastic place called South Australia in a fantastic country called Australia. However, I think having enjoyed the luck and the good fortune to grow up in a country like this, I and members of this place and all in our community owe it to those who are less fortunate, who are not as free as we are, to stand up for the freedoms that they do not enjoy.

At this point I would like to thank my local Lutheran pastors who have brought this issue to my attention. They have been lobbying me on this issue and helped counsel me on a number of aspects of these cases. They are a ready source of good advice, and I thank them for that. I would also like to thank the only Catholic priest in the village (as we call him) Father Mark Sexton, who has four or five parishes that he looks after in the Barossa Valley. He is a man with whom I have had many discussions on this issue. He continues to support—as the Barossa continues to support—the principle of religious freedom and pluralism.

In closing, can I say that there are many causes in our society that I wish were consigned to be an anachronistic part of our history. I think about the discussions we have had in this place on domestic violence. I would love to see a day where I can bring schoolchildren here and we can talk about the fact that there was a time when men disgustingly beat their wives and their children. I would like to come into this place and talk to young women and men and say that there was a time when people were persecuted because of their race, that there was a time when sexism was rife in our society and a time when homophobia existed and was rife and that our laws reflected that. The list goes on. The list very much goes on.

There are social causes which laws may not always be able to help change, but attitudes need to change, and this parliament should be used as a force for social good and social change in advance of those issues and principles that we hold so dear. Private members' time, I believe, is exactly the right time for us to highlight these issues, to highlight the legal wrongs that exist, not only in our own society but in other societies around the world. Hopefully, through this process, we here can do our part to help change the social norms across our society and across the world.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:43): I rise to support this motion. I congratulate the member for Schubert on bringing this issue to this place and also note his contribution to the debate in private members time. As an ongoing student of international politics, it is a bit unclear whether I am a financial or a non-financial member of Amnesty International right this very minute because they have a new way of keeping up their memberships. I have always been very concerned about what has been happening with regard to human rights on a global level.

Having been a student politician, I am also very familiar with the debates that happened in my day in student politics, particularly—and this will age me—the Australian Union of Students and the debates we had on issues concerning international politics. It was a very important part of my growing up and also my education. It is very interesting, all these years later, to have the honour of being in the House of Assembly and debating issues to do with human rights.

This is certainly an issue that fits into that category and, sadly, as the member for Schubert said, it is an area that we do need to bring to attention. I am not sure how much a state parliament can influence global international human rights issues, but I think it is important to make the connections with human rights issues in general and also use this place as an opportunity to continue the argument.

Mariam Ibrahim was born to a Sudanese Muslim father and an Ethiopian Orthodox mother. Mariam's father abandoned her when she was six years old. She was raised by her mother as a Christian; however, under the laws of the Republic of the Sudan, a child is expected to assume her father's religious and ethnic identity. Therefore, Mariam is considered to be a Muslim because her father is a Muslim.

In Sudan, converting from Islam or to another religion is unlawful and punishable by death. A Muslim relative of Mariam reportedly filed a criminal complaint against her, alleging she converted to Christianity after marrying Mr Daniel Wani, a South Sudanese Christian man. Accordingly, Mariam was charged with adultery on the grounds that a Muslim woman's marriage to a non-Muslim man is unlawful. At the same time, she was charged with apostasy for allegedly repudiating her original faith, Islam, and converting to Christianity.

In January 2014, while eight months' pregnant, Mariam was convicted of adultery and apostasy. In spite of sexual relations having been only with her husband, Mariam was convicted of adultery because Sudanese law does not recognise marriages between Muslim and non-Muslim partners. A Sudanese court found Mariam's marriage to Mr Wani was not valid and sentenced her to receive 100 lashes for committing adultery.

After giving birth at a women's hospital in Khartoum, Sudan, Mariam was given the opportunity to embrace her Muslim faith, but she refused, arguing that she could not rescind her genuine personal faith at the request of the court. The court rejected Mariam's argument and she was sentenced to death in May 2014.

I am pleased to learn that Mariam has been released following international condemnation of the Sudanese court's ruling. I understand that Mariam's death sentence was overturned on 23 June 2014 on an order from a Sudanese court of appeal. This is certainly a win for human rights and religious freedom. I guess it does demonstrate that, while we may wonder about protesting about something that is happening somewhere else with different laws and different views about religious thought, it is worth making an effort to raise one's voice.

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is recognised in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Sudanese government is a signatory to this international concord, which protects not only the traditional religious beliefs of major religions, but also the nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.

Like all of us, Mariam Ibrahim is entitled to full enjoyment of her inalienable human right of religious freedom. In this day and age, it is widely accepted that human beings have a right to choose what she or he believes is right in the religious realm. The way that Mariam was treated by the Sudanese government is deeply concerning, and it goes without saying that her sentence was a breach of the Sudanese international human rights obligation.

I am pleased to learn that Mariam and her husband were successfully granted an exit visa by the United States government and have now resettled in New Hampshire. The government therefore supports this motion and wishes Mariam and her family all the best in their new home.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:49): I would like to say a few brief words on this motion of the member for Schubert. I congratulate him on bringing it. This is probably the tip of the iceberg in this particular case, and I am very pleased, as the member for Ashford just said, that the family has been taken into the United States. Those who choose to knock the United States seemingly forget from time to time about the humanitarian work it does and that it accepts people like this who have been put in a terrible situation.

They are the rules of that country. They are completely different from the rules in this country, unfortunately, and that leads me to say that, in my view, there are too many people in this nation who take what we have for granted. Indeed, we need to pick up on cases such as Mariam Ibrahim's in Sudan, and I acknowledge the interest, particularly, of the member for Schubert and the member for Ashford, who have both spoken. We need to, wherever possible, identify and assist in these sorts of things and have them brought to our attention.

It is a great thing that the family has been reunited and allowed to go. Why on earth anyone would lock up a woman in that circumstance is beyond me. What goes on around this world in many countries, many to the west of Australia, is alarming if what you read and hear is correct—child slavery and things like that, the total rejection of any rights for women, and the list goes on. That is why I have been pleased and gratified that Australia has done its bit. If you use Afghanistan as an example, girls can now go to school. What is happening in some areas, I am not sure because that country is an evolving mess, in my view, but the very fact that girls have been able to go back to school because of Australia's involvement there is a good thing.

I support the motion and congratulate, again, the member for Schubert on having brought it to the house, and I will happily support the motion when it is put to the vote.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (11:52): I very briefly will explain my very strong support for this motion. It is a very good thing that the member for Schubert has brought this to the attention of the house. Often, there are some things that are—I will not say they are trivial because it would be a terrible thing to say that things in this house are trivial, but this is certainly a long, long way from trivial. These are some of the key principles of pluralism and tolerance—I think, some of the key principles that should be debated in this house. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to do that.

The member for Schubert has admirably outlined the case for the importance of tolerance, but we have seen in comparatively recent history, particularly in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, also in eastern Europe and Russia and even in China, over the course of the last 50 years, immediately after the Second World War, the catastrophic—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Cambodia is another one, thank you, and some parts of South-East Asia—consequences of a lack of tolerance, particularly of religion but also of different people in our society. Allowing them to go about their daily lives without imprisoning them simply for following a different religion from the majority of people around them is probably the most basic right. You can go, at great length, into discrimination in other areas of life, but just allowing them to go about their daily lives without being imprisoned simply for following a different religion is probably the most basic expression, other than killing them for it. It has been happening in those areas of Iraq and Syria that are under the occupation of the ISIS movement, although I think that Daesh is the preferred term these days.

The world will not improve, societies will not improve, the world will not be a better place to live if this sort of behaviour is tolerated. If we do not stand up and say something, can we really expect to be that effective in the South Australian state parliament? No. But should we sit by and do nothing? No, we should not do that either. We should stand up, we should say that we oppose this, that we do not find it an acceptable way of running a society and that we do not find it is an acceptable way of treating an individual. For the member for Schubert to bring this to the house and give us the opportunity to do that, it is a very good thing, and I will be supporting this motion.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:55): I am pleased that the member for Schubert has brought this motion to the house. I congratulate him on doing so and for his, I thought, very fine speech in moving the motion. I certainly agree with the comments he and the members for Ashford, Finniss and Newland have made in support of the motion.

One issue that was raised by the member for Ashford happens to coincide with the reason that I wanted to speak to this motion this morning, that is, the question of what effect the Parliament of South Australia discussing and debating a motion like this might have. Of course everybody supports the intent of a motion like this. I think the member for Ashford started to answer her own question in the affirmative in her speech, but I do wish to add a couple of other items to what she said.

I think there are three very, very strong and compelling reasons why this motion is very important. Yes, we are all absolutely ecstatic that Mariam Yahia Ibrahim was freed. I remember seeing the footage of her being received at the Vatican—it was extraordinary—and the adulation she received when she returned to the United States. It was wonderful to see, it was very touching. Mariam Ibrahim is totemic of a whole range of people who are suffering around the world under awful regimes and who are suffering from complicit or overtly racist, homophobic and religiously intolerant governments around the world. As a parliament with such a proud history of tolerance, of suffrage, and support for and championing of freedom, I think in South Australia it is critical we do so.

There are three reasons why I think it is worth spending 20 or 30 minutes of the parliament's time talking about this today. Firstly, while we are proud of our pluralism, of our tolerance, of our freedom, and all of those other things that South Australia has in its history, it is not enough to rest on our laurels and assume that we can always have our freedoms. Freedom must be protected jealously, it must be nurtured vigilantly. In identifying situations such as this, which are so opposed to what we stand for, it helps us to understand better those things that we do stand for, understand better how we as a parliamentarians can continue to protect the freedoms that the people of South Australia rightly expect from us.

Secondly, people from countries where these situations are taking place live in our communities. People who have fled from these countries live in our communities. It is critically important that we understand, as members of parliament, the circumstances that they have fled from. As the member for Schubert identified, people who live in his electorate fled religious persecution, and people from Morialta have also come from around the world over several generations. A while ago (I have not checked recently) census statistics suggested that Morialta is the most multicultural electorate in South Australia, and I would be surprised if that were not still the case.

After World War II, people came from Italy and Greece and other places in Europe that had been trampled on by the Nazi regimes. More recently, people have come from India and Africa, and refugee communities are building strongly in Morialta. We have a very high number of people from China who are living in Morialta in order that they may have more than one child. It is important that we as members of parliament understand where their communities have come from, not only so that you can connect better and be able to relate better to your electors but also so that their experience of the country may be better informed.

I know that in recent years the South Australian police force has had a particular focus on engaging with multicultural communities, and this is important. It is important because there are many people who come to our country whose experience of dealing with the police force has not been anything like they might have in South Australia. Their experience has been one of mistrust and of oppression.

As the shadow police minister, I am very proud of the South Australian police force. They have much to offer—and I am pleased that they do—but it is critical that they engage with those communities so that, for example, women who suffer from domestic and family violence in their homes have the understanding that if they go to police they will, in fact, have their issues dealt with. Unless we understand and remind ourselves of the circumstances from which people in these situations have come, the policy settings that enable that support to be given are unable to be put in place. So, it is important to have these reminders.

The third point is that this parliament is, of course, the first opportunity for the people of South Australia to express their will. Whilst on the world stage we may be a state parliament and the national parliament deals largely with foreign affairs, we are part of the international collective. When people speak up for Mariam Ibrahim, and others in her situation, that is part of what can be received in the international community. Those fighting for freedom and for their communities against oppression in the international community can add the South Australian parliament to the list of communities and parliaments in countries around the world who have said, 'No, this is not acceptable,' and give solace to those.

I particularly think of the experience I have had in meeting political activists from the Maldives and from other countries where I know that, when they see people standing in solidarity with them, they take comfort. I mention the Maldives because it is only in the last several months that Ahmed Rilwan, a journalist in the Maldives, has been taken, and we do not know what is happening to him.

Child slavery and human trafficking occurs around the world and, as the member for Finniss identified, there are countries where the government is complicit in these activities taking place. There are countries where homosexuality has led to people being imprisoned or currently awaiting charges. There are hundreds of people in prison awaiting charges in Nigeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Gambia, Morocco, Lebanon and Cameroon for being born gay, lesbian, bisexual or otherwise non-traditionally identified.

There are people in gaol or awaiting charges for apostasy or failure to comply with the religious norms of the country. There are people who are in gaol or awaiting charges simply for questioning the government. This parliament stands in solidarity with those communities and those people who continue to fight for freedom and against oppression. I commend the member for Schubert for bringing this matter to our attention for our constant reminder of the freedoms for which so many have fought, which we must continue—as is our duty—to nurture and be vigilant in their protection.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (12:02): I would like to speak briefly on behalf of my constituents, and I commend the member for Schubert for bringing this motion before the house because as we all know (and many speakers have spoken about it in the chamber today) religious freedom is at the heart of the formation of our state. What we do in this house as representatives of our communities, and as custodians of democracy with those people on their behalf, is at the forefront of what we do every day, I would hope.

From my perspective, like the member for Morialta I have a particularly diverse electorate in the north with people having come from Asia, Greece and Italy following the post-European war battles, but also from modern history and the Asia-Pacific area—Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese people. Many of the people I meet in my electorate were unable to stay in their places due to wars on ideology but also, increasingly, I have people in my electorate who are unable to participate in their religious practices.

Last year, I was able to go to Vietnam and speak to some Hoa Hao Buddhists who practise their faith in my electorate in Virginia at a temple I visit every year. In Vietnam, they are persecuted for their faith, and the government is rewriting their religious books to write out religious faith practices to disallow them to pass their faith on to a new generation, and I find that abhorrent. The idea of what has happened in Africa recently, with many cases of people persecuted for being of different faith, gender or sexuality and with values different from those of the government, is something which no government should suppress—namely, the diversity within a decent human format for people to be able to live as peacefully and coexist in a tolerant society.

I commend the member for Schubert for a magnificent speech about the core values of what a decent civilised society should be in Australia but particularly in South Australia. I would hope that all of those things are foremost in our minds every day as we move forward as the custodians of democracy for our electorates.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:05): Can I just quickly thank all the members who spoke in this place on this issue. I think all the contributions were extremely sincere and heartfelt. I would also like to thank at this point the Lutheran community in Lyndoch who originally brought this issue to my attention. I want to give a bit of a shout out to them because this is something they have felt quite passionately and strongly about. They are the ones who came to me and said, 'Stephan, you are our elected representative. What are you doing about it?' I can fulfil my commitment to them today.

Can I say that this is an important issue. It is one that is not going to go away and one that we are going to need to play our parts in here. I know we are many thousands of kilometres away from where the action is, but it was international pressure that helped to gain the release of Mariam Ibrahim. In any debate, it is the ones who are silent who become irrelevant and the ones who speak up who become part of the force for change. Thank you very much.

Motion carried.