Skip to main content
Read page text

Page Text



ISIS must face justice

The bells of a church in Bartella rang out last week for the first time since 2014. That was the year ISIS captured the town which lies 13 miles to the east of Mosul in northern Iraq. When the black-clad fighters entered Bartella they tore down crosses, hung their flags from church walls and ordered the few remaining Christians to either convert, pay an extortionate tax or face “death by the sword”.

No one, sadly, will have heard the bells of Bartella in the streets of Mosul. Currently residents of Iraq’s second city can only hear the hellish din of war: missiles, mortars, suicide bombs and bullets. As Pope Francis put it in his Angelus address on Sunday, “Our souls are shaken by the brutal acts of violence that are being committed for too long against innocent citizens, whether Muslims or Christians.”

But the moment is surely coming when the silenced bells of Mosul will ring out too. Christians lived there continuously for 1,600 years before the arrival of ISIS. Mosul even has a place in our salvation history: across the River Tigris lie the ruins of the biblical city of Nineveh. We hope that Mosul’s empty churches will soon be full of worshippers once again. When ISIS loses its last major foothold in Iraq – and it will – investigators must document the terror group’s crimes as quickly as possible. If there is any delay, we may lose crucial evidence of ISIS’s genocidal activities. For ISIS

The moment is coming when the silenced bells of Mosul will ring out again is no ordinary Middle Eastern dictatorship; it is arguably the most barbarous regime since Nazism. We must treat it with the same severity: defeating it thoroughly on the battlefield and then prosecuting what remains of its leadership.

The prospect of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi standing in the dock at The Hague may seem remote. But that is what we must aspire to if we want to send an emphatic message that no one can slaughter hundreds of thousands of people and get away with it.

Amal Clooney, a distinguished human rights lawyer whose actor husband you may have heard of, is one of the few seeking to bring ISIS to justice. In a forceful speech to the United Nations last month, she pointed out that “not a single member of ISIS has been prosecuted in a court anywhere in the world” for genocide against Yazidis. “I am ashamed as a human being that we ignore their cries for help,” she said. “We know that what we have before us is genocide, and we know that it is still ongoing. We know exactly who the perpetrators are. ISIS brags about its crimes online.”

The downfall of ISIS will offer a sobering test of the international order. The US state department, British Parliament and the European Parliament have all declared that the terror group is committing genocide. If ISIS’s surviving leaders are not put on trial, then we will be telling murderous groups everywhere: do whatever you like, we are too weak and disunited to stop you.

The Belfast appeal court’s judgment against Ashers Bakery – in what has become known as the “gay cake” case – is certainly troubling. The bakers, Christian owners of a family-run firm, had acted reasonably. They had not challenged the morality of homosexuality, let alone expressed disdain for gay people. They merely said that they would not decorate a cake with the words “Support Gay Marriage” because it was against their beliefs.

Of course, decorating a cake is not necessarily to approve the message. But this conflicts with the moral view that assisting an act which we believe to be wrong is also wrong. It would make the bakers, in the words of the Penny Catechism, “a partner in the sin”. It is the

A half-baked law same reasoning which leads us to approve the prosecution of those who knowingly assist in unlawful acts.

But the bakers’ refusal has been ruled unlawful – and the ruling could have considerable effects. Michael Wardlow, a chief commissioner in the Equality Commission, has told us that the failure of the bakers’ appeal was extremely significant and has clarified the law.

In the light of other recent cases – notably, the closure of Catholic adoption agencies – this could seem another step towards creating a culture which requires us all to conform to the latest popular opinion.

But the response to the ruling gives us some grounds for hope. Many observers who support same-sex marriage nevertheless believe the law is now unfair. The campaigner Peter Tatchell has said the verdict has disturbing implications for freedom of expression. Other commentators from both ends of the political spectrum have also condemned the ruling. The spectacle of a small business being punished for the owners’ private opinions has reminded many that equality law can end up producing worse injustices than those it was supposed to remedy.

A possible solution was suggested in 2014 by Baroness Hale of the Supreme Court: a “reasonable accommodation” clause to protect religious views. No political party has yet proposed this reform. But the “gay cake” case is a powerful argument for doing so.


Skip to main content