🤔 Point of Order

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

Chris Law from Dundee Central raised concerns about the Foreign Secretary’s comments on genocide, questioning if the UK’s stance on the genocide convention has changed. He highlighted that genocide is defined by intent and specific acts, not just the number of deaths, referencing the Srebrenica massacre as an example. Despite seeking clarification through letters, Law received no satisfactory response from the Foreign Office. Madam Deputy Speaker clarified that the Chair does not oversee ministerial answers or correspondence.

Summary

  • Chris Law, SNP MP for Dundee Central, raised a point of order regarding a statement made by the Foreign Secretary on October 28, 2024, about the terms “annihilation,” “extermination,” and “genocide.”
  • The Foreign Secretary suggested these terms are significant mainly when millions have died, referencing crises like the Holocaust and Rwanda.
  • Law challenged this view, pointing out that the international definition of genocide focuses on specific acts and intent to destroy groups, not solely the number of deaths.
  • He mentioned the UK Government’s recognition of the Srebrenica genocide, where around 8,000 were killed, to support his argument.
  • Law has written multiple letters to seek clarification from the Foreign Office but received responses from an Under-Secretary that did not address his concerns.
  • He questioned whether the UK Government has shifted its stance on the genocide convention established since 1947.
  • Madam Deputy Speaker responded that the Chair does not control the content of Ministers’ answers or their correspondence with MPs.

Divisiveness

The session contains a point of order raised by Chris Law, which involves disagreement over the definition and usage of the term ‘genocide’ as used by the Foreign Secretary. However, the nature of the disagreement is more about seeking clarification and understanding rather than outright confrontation or hostility. Chris Law questions the Foreign Secretary’s statement and its alignment with the international convention on genocide, but he does so in a formal and structured manner, seeking clarification rather than challenging directly. The response from Madam Deputy Speaker does not engage with the substance of the disagreement but rather refers to protocol, indicating no escalation in the disagreement. There are no examples of direct confrontations or conflicting statements made during the session itself that would suggest higher levels of disagreement. Therefore, the disagreement is present but at a moderate level, not intensely disruptive or overtly hostile.