GLOBAL RULES TO BAN THE POLITICAL ABUSE OF RELIGION
An International Partnership to Address the Root Causes of Religious Conflicts

The Churchill Room, House of Commons, Westminster, London
Thursday 26 March 2026

Ladies and Gentlemen, distinguished parliamentarians, faith leaders, colleagues and friends.

It is both an honour and a profound responsibility to address you today at this historic gathering in the House of Commons. We meet at a time when the world feels dangerously unsettled. Against the tragic backdrop of wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, and the continuing agony in Gaza, the international community is once again confronted with the consequences of failed conflict prevention and fractured global leadership. In such moments, we are compelled to ask not only how we respond to crises, but how we prevent them. That is why the initiative to develop an International Treaty to Ban the Political Abuse of Religion is not merely timely, it is essential.

The United Nations was founded in the aftermath of global catastrophe to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Yet despite a robust framework of human rights instruments, not least Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we continue to witness religion being manipulated, instrumentalised and weaponised for political power.

Let us be clear: religion itself is not the problem. Faith traditions across the world, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and others, carry profound messages of compassion, dignity, justice and mercy. For billions of people, religion provides moral guidance, cultural identity and spiritual comfort.

The problem arises when political actors, whether state or non-state, exploit religion as a tool of control, exclusion or domination. History teaches us that when religion and political power fuse in ways that institutionalise inequality, discrimination and coercion, the consequences can be devastating. From sectarian violence to theocratic authoritarianism, from religious discrimination embedded in law to extremist insurgencies claiming divine mandate, the abusive mixing of religion and politics has been a persistent driver of instability.

We have seen it in the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. We have seen it in the persecution of minorities across multiple regions. We have seen it wherever public authority claims sacred legitimacy in order to silence dissent and suppress equality.

This initiative does not seek to remove religion from public life. That would be neither realistic nor, in many societies, desirable. Religion is deeply woven into the identity and moral fabric of nations. Rather, what we seek to prohibit is the political abuse of religion, where faith is invoked to restrict fundamental rights, to institutionalise inequality, or to undermine equal protection under the law. There is a critical distinction here. To protect religion is not to protect its political exploitation.
To defend freedom of belief is not to defend discrimination justified in its name.

The Westminster Declaration rightly reaffirms that freedom of religion or belief is a cornerstone of human dignity. But it also recognises that existing international norms, though principled and aspirational, often lack operational clarity and effective safeguards when confronted with the political manipulation of faith. Victims frequently have limited avenues for redress. Governments lack clear preventive standards. And the international community is left reacting to crises rather than addressing their structural causes.

This proposed treaty would not replace existing human rights instruments. It would reinforce and clarify them. It would introduce clear and universally respectful standards to prohibit:

• Political abuses of religion that undermine human equality
• Religious discrimination in rights and duties
• Religious exclusion embedded in public law and governance
• Restrictions on freedom of religion or belief arising from political manipulation of faith

These are simple principles. They are not ideological. They do not target any religion, culture or constitutional model. Indeed, one of the strengths of this initiative is precisely that it does not single out any country or faith tradition. The problem is global. The rules must therefore be global. No responsible government should find it difficult to support such principles. Who would openly argue for the right to use religion to discriminate? Who would defend inequality before the law justified by political theology?

By focusing on prevention rather than confrontation, on clarity rather than accusation, this approach offers a path towards genuine consensus. The leadership of BPUR International, under the vision of Salam Sarhan and with the support of a growing international coalition, has demonstrated that this is not a theoretical exercise. It is a structured and steadily advancing diplomatic effort. Engagement with parliamentarians and governments across multiple regions, from North Africa to Europe, from South Asia to the Gulf, shows that there is genuine appetite for a constructive solution. Conferences such as the one held in Morocco in 2022 demonstrate that civil society, lawmakers and religious leaders can work together to explore this framework.

Today, here in Westminster, we take another important step. But let us also be realistic. International law does not evolve through aspiration alone. It requires state leadership, political courage and sustained dialogue. The roadmap ahead involves structured consultations, regional engagement and, ultimately, the tabling of this proposal at the United Nations General Assembly. That is an ambitious objective, but it is not an unrealistic one.

If adopted, such a treaty could make a profound difference to billions of people. By addressing one of the recurring structural drivers of conflict, it would strengthen domestic legal frameworks, enhance social cohesion and contribute to stability and sustainable development. It would protect minorities. It would reinforce equality before the law. It would help ensure that religion remains a source of moral guidance rather than political division. And perhaps most importantly, it would shift the global conversation, from managing the consequences of extremism to preventing the conditions that allow it to flourish.

As someone who has observed conflicts across many regions over several decades, I am convinced that many of the world’s most intractable crises cannot be resolved solely through military intervention, sanctions or emergency diplomacy. They require structural clarity in international norms. How many lives might have been saved had clearer global standards existed decades ago? How many societies might have avoided cycles of sectarian violence? We cannot rewrite history. But we can learn from it. This initiative is not anti-religion. It is pro-dignity. Pro-equality. Pro-peace. It seeks not to diminish faith, but to protect its sanctity from manipulation.

In a world increasingly fractured by identity politics, polarisation and ideological extremism, establishing fair and universally applicable standards against the political abuse of religion would send a powerful message: That human equality is non-negotiable. That freedom of belief is universal. And that public authority must never exploit the sacred to entrench inequality. The choice before us is not between religion and secularism. It is between exploitation and integrity. Manipulation and responsibility. Division and cohesion. Let this gathering in the House of Commons mark a turning point in that conversation. Let us commit to building a broad and inclusive coalition of responsible states willing to explore this treaty in good faith.

And let us remember that preventing the political abuse of religion is not merely a legal exercise. It is a moral imperative. If we succeed, future generations may look back and say that at a time of global uncertainty we chose principle over expediency, prevention over reaction, and peace over division