Emily being released by Hamas (Image: Anadolu via Getty)
The United Kingdom’s moral authority and commitment to protecting its citizens have long been points of national pride, but this belief now stands exposed as dangerously hollow.
It is a sentiment woven into the very fabric of our national identity: the idea that wherever a British citizen goes, they carry with them the implicit protection of their country.
Yet, this comforting notion is a myth — one starkly exposed by the tragic case of Emily Damari and countless others like her. If Britain is to live up to its own rhetoric, it must address the glaring deficiencies of its consular framework. The Emily Damari Provision for Consular Assistance offers a pathway to do precisely that.
Emily Damari’s story is a harrowing testament to systemic failure, and tragically, it is one that echoes across the experiences of many others.
Detained abroad under conditions that amounted to severe human rights abuses, Emily’s case exemplifies the failures of a consular system that remains discretionary rather than obligatory.
Her family’s pleas for help were met with delays, bureaucracy, and inconsistency. The system’s shortcomings left her vulnerable to incommunicado detention, a state that often escalates into torture, ill-treatment, or worse.
For Emily and her family, the UK’s lack of legal obligation to act was not a technicality. It was a devastating reality.What’s worse is that Emily’s story is not an anomaly.
Each year, more than 100 British nationals report experiences of torture or severe mistreatment abroad. Many others are detained arbitrarily, often as pawns in geopolitical games.
Yet, despite these harrowing statistics, consular assistance from the UK government remains a privilege extended at its discretion, not a right guaranteed by law.
This is not just an administrative failure; it is a moral abdication. The Emily Damari Provision for Consular Assistance, fronted by We Believe In , the leading UK-based advocacy group, proposes a seismic shift in how Britain approaches its duty to its citizens abroad.
At its heart is the call for a legal right to consular assistance. Such a framework would replace the current patchwork system with one rooted in accountability, consistency, and humanity.
It would ensure that British nationals, regardless of their circumstances or dual citizenship, receive the timely and effective support they need.
It would mean that families, already grappling with the anguish of a loved one’s detention, are no longer left to navigate an opaque and indifferent system on their own.
Some critics dismiss the idea of legislating a statutory right to consular assistance as unnecessary or impractical, but such objections crumble in the face of cold reality.
They are wrong. Consular support is not merely a bureaucratic function; it is a lifeline.
Early intervention can prevent human rights abuses, secure access to legal representation, and ensure detainees’ safety and wellbeing. It is, quite literally, a matter of life and death.
Moreover, enshrining this obligation in law would bring the UK in line with its international commitments under treaties like the UN Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
These are not abstract ideals; they are binding responsibilities — ones Britain is currently failing to meet. The transformative impact of the Emily Damari Provision goes far beyond individual cases.
A robust and reliable consular framework would enhance public trust in government and reinforce Britain’s reputation as a global leader in human rights. It would also act as a deterrent against the growing phenomenon of arbitrary detention.
When foreign governments know that Britain will respond decisively to the mistreatment of its citizens, they are less likely to use them as leverage.
In this sense, the provision is not just a safeguard for individuals; it is a statement of national strength and resolve.There is also an economic argument to be made.
The current system often forces families to bear the financial burden of securing legal representation, medical care, or even basic necessities for detained loved ones.
By institutionalising consular assistance, the UK would alleviate these costs, providing a safety net for families who are already facing unimaginable stress. This is not just compassionate; it is practical.
For those fretting over the supposed costs of implementing such a framework, let us be unequivocal: the cost of inaction — measured in lives, dignity, and Britain’s moral standing — is infinitely greater.
Every case like Emily’s erodes public confidence in the government’s ability to protect its citizens. Every delay or failure to act undermines Britain’s standing on the global stage.
The question is not whether we can afford to implement the Emily Damari Provision. It is whether we can afford not to. The United Kingdom has a choice to make.
It can continue with the status quo, a system that leaves too many British nationals to suffer in silence and their families to shoulder unbearable burdens. Or it can act decisively, embedding in law a commitment to protect its citizens wherever they may be.
The Emily Damari Provision is not just a policy proposal; it is a moral imperative. It is an opportunity to reaffirm what it means to be British—to stand for justice, dignity, and the unwavering protection of our people.
If we are serious about our values, if we are serious about our citizens, then the path forward is clear. We must make the Emily Damari Provision a reality. Anything less would be an abdication of our duty and a betrayal of those who depend on us the most.