Newsline 1 May 2015

Not a member? The most tangible way of supporting our work is by becoming a member and contributing funds to enable us to campaign effectively; the more we have, the more we can do. If you believe, as we do, that a secular Britain is our best chance to achieve true equality for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, then please join us and become part of what is possibly the most important debate of the 21st century. Together we can create a fairer and more equal society.

News, Blogs & Opinion

	Bath Student Union and university chaplains blocked comedy sketch material on Mohammed and Jesus News \| Mon, 27th Apr 2015 Student Union officials and university chaplains ordered a line featuring Mohammed cut from a student comedy show, because it caused "great offence." Bath Impact the student newspaper, reports that Union officials said the decision had been taken to maintain the 'inclusivity' of the university and to 'avoid complaints.' One of the organisers told the National Secular Society that the sketch only "had a one line reference to Mohammed" but the group was told that they "couldn't mention him at all". The Student Union showed the material to the chaplaincy, whose complaint was escalated to the Secretary of the University. The Society was then told "unofficially" that they would face disciplinary action if they performed the show as written. The Society therefore cooperated and removed the line, but the entire sketch was removed anyway- despite the 'offending' line being edited out. The chaplains also denounced the scene, which featured Jesus, as "graphic" and offensive. According to organisers of the Comedy Writing, Improvisation and Performance Society (CWIPS), the skit, called "Cooking With Christ" had to be removed when chaplains complained. Just four hours before the opening night of the show, "The Bible According to CWIPS", a Union official who attended a rehearsal told the society that the "Cooking With Christ" scene had to be excised because of the chaplaincy's objections. Ironically, the chaplaincy staged their own, separate performance of biblical scenes on the same night- which depicted Jesus being stabbed. While one member of the Comedy Society said that the Union initially "couldn't give more of an explanation" for their instruction to axe the sketch, the Society learned that the University Chaplaincy had become involved, and organisers were then told that chaplains had read the scene and had "pronounced that [it was] too graphic." The Chaplaincy is said to have described the cut sketch as "extreme", but the organisers commented that they had "worked very hard in order to make sure [the] material was enjoyable and pleasant for people of all faiths and background." The Comedy Society was forced to abide by the Union's ruling, though organisers complained that while the Union was led by elected officers, the Chaplaincy should have had no authority within the Union. Nick West, Assistant Director for "The Bible According to CWIPS", told the NSS; "At a university with such diversity of religion among students it's important to try to make sure no person feels alienated by the work we do. But the line needs to be drawn somewhere." He added in a written statement that "at no point in the show" did the Comedy Society victimise any faith or its members. "At the end of the day, it was a show based around the Bible and religion, not a show mocking it." Despite advising that the line featuring Mohammed and the "Cooking With Christ" sketch be cut, the chaplaincy commented that "freedom of speech is important and should be respected". The show also featured material on the Bible, Richard Dawkins, and a scene with God attending Jesus' school's nativity play. NSS president Terry Sanderson said: "This is another example of blasphemy codes being normalised. It is extraordinary that the mere mention of Mohammed was considered unacceptable and that students were threatened with disciplinary action. "The decision taken about the single line of dialogue mentioning Mohammed assumes that Muslim students would have been offended, and takes that as a sufficient reason to curtail these students' artistic expression. "It is also very troubling to see 'inclusivity' being used as a spurious reason to shut down parts of the performance. There is an atmosphere of hysteria around satirising or criticising Islam, particularly since the Charlie Hebdo attack. We must start reclaiming ground from those who would silence free expression and satire. "It is sheer hypocrisy from the chaplaincy to say freedom of speech should be respected while seeking to censor material lampooning Christianity." *Update 28/04/15:* This story has been amended after new information came to light. An earlier version stated that the sketch "depicted" Mohammed, in fact, the scene simply mentioned him. Additionally, organisers have informed us that material relating to Jesus was cut as well, after chaplains objected to it. *Update 05/05/15:* The Bath Atheists, Humanists & Secularists Society have written an open letter to the Students' Union and the University Secretary expressing their concerns over the incident and implications for free expression and community cohesion at the University.
	It should be politically impossible for universities to enforce blasphemy laws Opinion \| Thu, 30th Apr 2015 It should be politically toxic, publicly excruciating, there should be protests, and mass disruption to campuses when universities censor blasphemy. Where is the outrage? The censors and reactionaries are at it again. The most recent case came from Bath. A mild piece of student comedy was excised by a Student Union and the university chaplaincy – because it mentioned Mohammed, and teased Jesus. Students were "unofficially" threatened with disciplinary action if they went ahead with their performance. Last week there was Queen's University Belfast. Initially, two excuses were offered for nixing a modestly titled talk on the shockwaves of the Charlie Hebdo massacre: security (read cowardice), and the 'reputation' of the university. After the university was shamed, it offered a third reason- an omission in the filing of health and safety paperwork by the event organisers. Administrators tried to claim that this was the real reason for the conference being scrapped. Rubbish. Universities are increasingly herd-like, not daring to go it alone, and many Student Unions too seem populated by dubious figures of bovine passivity. We mustn't let them get away with it. After the Belfast scandal was made known, the University eventually appeared to backtrack and issued a statement "suggesting [the] possibility of conference going ahead" (as the Guardian put it). Hardly courageous, but it shows that pressure works. I suspect the introduction of the profit motive has played its role as well: for both students and timid, corporate university hierarchies. Students are there to get a job at the end and daren't risk any association with controversy- it will be online forever; while managers have revenue streams to protect and corporate brand reputations to manage. In short, they are more interested in profits than prophets. Too often this censorship comes from traditionally 'left wing' institutions like Student Unions. There is a stubborn strand on the left that refuses to be unequivocal in denouncing violence against people who use their rights of speech. The misinformed writers snivelling at PEN's decision to give a free speech award to Charlie Hebdo are this week's example. It's not all leftists, many realise and write that the left has a particular problem within its ranks with those who are faltering on the most important issue of liberation since the end of the Cold War. In this most recent scandal at Bath, the Student Union actually went to the chaplaincy for their blessing on what a student comedy society could perform. They went searching for the forces of reaction and they found them. Could you imagine firebrand student leaders of the 1970s or 80s siding with the clerics on a matter of blasphemy and comedy? I can't. The people on our side of the debate aren't going to throw bombs, start riots or shoot up offices. What we should do is make it absolutely impossible for any credible institution to impose blasphemy laws on its students and staff. We must give them as much hassle as we can. The reputational costs should be enormous. At university I once met an undergraduate- a law student- who said they could not take part in discussions in class because they "did not like feeling like their ideas were being questioned." Indeed. All too often, students are complicit in their own oppression and build up the neural architecture needed to familiarise themselves with- and adjust to- blasphemy- through familiarity with other types of censorship. It is therefore not as outrageous to them as it might have been: it begins with abused 'safe space' policies and it ends with blasphemy codes on campus. As for the universities: appeasement doesn't make you safer; and we all have a part to play in shaming those who try it by installing blasphemy codes for reasons of corporate cowardice. If they must be embarrassed into defending freedom- then so be it. One by one, universities can be made to rediscover their true purpose, after a long period in the moral wilderness.
	Free speech campaigners concerned by Ed Miliband’s vow to ban ‘Islamophobia’- without defining what it means News \| Wed, 29th Apr 2015 The National Secular Society and other advocates for freedom of expression have expressed alarm after Labour leader Ed Miliband set out his intention to 'outlaw' Islamophobia. Speaking with Muslim News, Mr Miliband said of 'Islamophobia': "We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime." "We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear … our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country." "We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime." Writing on Liberal Democrat Voice, Mark Wright argued that the Labour Party had "unfinished business" with so-called "religious hatred." Wright said "defenders of freedom of speech should be alarmed" at the "nebulous" proposal put forward by Ed Miliband, because they seemed to imply a return to the then-Labour Government's attempt in 2006 to "criminalise 'deliberately insulting' a religion." The article noted that Ed Miliband himself voted for the original, defeated wording of the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (now Act)- which would have seriously impinged free speech. NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "There already exists a distinct offence of religiously aggravated hate crime that carries a maximum 7 year tariff. We all want to prevent bigoted attacks on people, but given how tough the law is already – this sounds like Ed Miliband may want to revisit the 2006 legislation on 'insulting religion'. If so he'll be challenged every step of the way. "'Islamophobia' is a highly contentious and nebulous term, and at the very least, Mr Milliband needs to define what he is intending to outlaw." NSS honorary associate Maajid Nawaz, who is a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate, said "no idea is above scrutiny" and described the vague proposal as "illiberal." Professor Richard Dawkins, also an honorary associate of the NSS, has been drumming up opposition to Mr Miliband's comments on social media and called on him to explain his plans. He asked if the proposed law would prosecute Charlie Hebdo and said that if it wouldn't "it would be useful" to have a clarification of the Labour leader's comments "to explain why not." Dealing with the confusion around the term 'Islamophobia', Professor Dawkins said he thought Ed Miliband was against violent attacks against people and anti-Muslim bigotry, for which there were already applicable laws, but asked, "why privilege religion?" He challenged Ed Miliband on Twitter over whether he could "go to jail" for quoting Islamic scripture which says, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." In 2006 the National Secular Society worked along with campaign groups including the Christian Institute, and campaigners such as former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris, against the original wording of the 2006 Act, which was described at the time by the NSS as "draconian" and a "huge blow to freedom of expression." Ultimately, after a narrow single-vote defeat, a much more watered-down version of the legislation was passed into law.
	Nigel Farage calls for “muscular defence” of Christianity in the UK News \| Tue, 28th Apr 2015 Nigel Farage has said that Christianity is a "significant part" of his "vision for the future of Britain" in a special message on "UKIP Policies for Christians." The UKIP leader wrote that the UK is "fundamentally a Christian nation" and added that Christianity "should be recognised by Government at all levels." "Sadly, I think UKIP is the only major political party left in Britain that still cherishes our Judaeo-Christian heritage. I believe other parties have deliberately marginalised our nation's faith, whereas we take Christian values and traditions into consideration when making policy." Mr Farage called for a "muscular defence" of what he calls the UK's "Christian heritage" and "Christian Constitution." In a UKIP election publication called "Valuing Our Christian Heritage", the party calls for an extension of the "legal concept of 'reasonable accommodation'", which would allow believers to refuse services to same-sex couples and notes UKIP's opposition to marriage equality legislation. They say it "impinged upon the beliefs of millions of people of faith." The publication explains UKIP's policies on a range of "Christian" issues. The party will seek to make sex-selective abortion illegal and has "no plans" to change the law on the "right to die." On human trafficking, they state that "our Christian forefathers fought hard to abolish slavery and now we must fight to end it in modern-day Britain." On education, UKIP "backs faith schools provided they are open to the whole community, uphold British values, do not discriminate against any section of society and meet required educational standards." The party "will not allow primary school children to be given sex education lessons." UKIP also argue that by pulling out of the EU, the party could cut VAT for Church repairs down to 5%. NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "As is often the case with elections we are seeing the unedifying spectacle of politicians of all stripes trying to win so-called religious block votes. Attempts to win the 'Christian vote' with a promise to accommodate discrimination against gay people is particularly regressive and unwelcome. "Politicians need to wake up to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Britons are not Christians. It is unclear what UKIP mean by saying Christianity should 'be recognised by Government at all levels' but it sounds deeply inappropriate for a country where most people are not Christian." The National Secular Society recently called on Ed Miliband to clarify his comments on religious freedom in the workplace, after he appeared to suggest Labour might review workplace equality law and would "look at" how Christians can manifest their beliefs in the workplace.
	Less than 40% of would-be MPs claim a belief in God News \| Fri, 24th Apr 2015 A survey carried out by Whitehouse Consultancy has found that 33% of parliamentary candidates contesting marginal seats describe themselves as atheists. Just 37% said they believe in God, and 42% of the 225 parliamentary candidates who responded to the survey said they had no religious affiliation. Only 16% of respondents were members of the Church of England, closely followed by 12% of prospective parliamentary candidates who identified with the Roman Catholic Church. 2% of respondents said they were Jewish; likewise 2% of PPCs each said they were Buddhist and Muslim. The Whitehouse Consultancy argued that smaller religions are "poorly represented" in the survey results and that they point to a "lack of diversity" in the beliefs of parliamentary candidates. Chairman Chris Whitehouse commented, "I don't think this is only a question of how candidates are selected. It is also one of how we can encourage more people with a range of beliefs and backgrounds to get involved and be active in politics." "Given recent findings on Britain's religious beliefs, it's unsurprising that a majority of parliamentary candidates are either non-religious or atheist." Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, noted that, "while religious minorities may be under-represented, it is worth noting that non-believers are as well. "Polling shows time and time again that the vast majority of Britons don't have religious beliefs. YouGov polling conducted around Easter found that 62% of people say they are not religious. WIN/Gallup found that Britain is the sixth least religious country in the world. "There is only an issue with politicians' religious beliefs if they try to force their religious views on to others. The last parliament has seen some politicians using their positions to evangelise, which is wholly inappropriate- particularly given how irreligious society is today." The Green Party and Labour had the highest percentage of non-religious candidates, at 49% and 48% respectively. 41% of Conservative Party candidates are members of the Church of England.
	Prayers cause conflict on Northern Ireland council News \| Wed, 29th Apr 2015 Councillors in Northern Ireland have been left bitterly split after an hour long row over whether to begin council meetings with prayers. The Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council was left deadlocked for over an hour, before finally voting to say prayers at the start of official meetings – leading one councillor to warn that a "huge case" could be made to the Northern Ireland Equality Commission by staff required to attend meetings and thus forced to sit through the religious observances. UUP councillor William McCandless said: "I am annoyed that we are sitting here in a Christian country being asked to vote with or against the Lord's Prayer." He added, "Christians are being beheaded in Islamic countries, I think we need time to reflect for a moment." Sinn Fein councillor Cara McShane said that religion and politics should be separate, and according to the Coleraine Times, suggested that legal advice was needed. She also warned that "staff are compelled to be at these meeting, there is a huge case waiting to happen either with the Equality Commission or a Tribunal" if the meetings opened with prayers. McShane told her fellow councillors, "we shouldn't be shoving beliefs down people's throats." DUP councillor George Duddy said he was "disgusted" that "a prayer that we should all say every day has become a debate." NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented, "This should serve as another example to those who think local authorities in other parts of the UK should open their meetings with prayers. They are inappropriate, divisive and unnecessary." A range of proposals were considered before the vote finally passed. A twenty minute recess was needed as arguments became heated and intractable. One SDLP councillor said that it is "not very inclusive to expect members to stand outside" while prayers are being held. She added, "I don't come here to pray." An amendment was tabled suggesting that prayers be held before meetings begin – something which the National Secular Society has suggested for councillors in the rest of the UK, rather than expecting all councillors and staff to sit through prayers during official meeting time – however the suggested amendment was defeated. A full meeting of the council is needed to ratify the business of the meeting. The 1998 Northern Ireland Act states that a public authority shall "have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity" between "persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation." It also requires a public authority to have "regard" for the "desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group." Mr Evans added, "The imposition of religious observances during official meetings does nothing to promote good relations between people of different religious and non-religious views." Earlier this year the UK Government passed legislation giving English local authorities an explicit power to include prayers "or other religious observance" in their official meetings. The Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Act was opposed by the National Secular Society, which had previously won a High Court ruling that the inclusion of prayers in meetings to which councillors were summoned to attend was not lawful under the Local Government Act 1972.
	Election 2015: Where the parties stand on secularist issues Opinion \| Thu, 16th Apr 2015 Find out where the parties stand on collective worship, faith schools, multiculturalism, sex and relationships education, religion in society and a range of other secular issues. While the National Secular Society is not party political, that doesn't stop us from looking at what individual policies are on offer in the General Election. Here we present relevant policies on secularism and religion- whether good or bad- from each party. NSS members and supporters represent a broad spectrum of political opinion, and we've rated the parties impartially so that our members and supporters can decide which political party is best on the secular issues that they think are important. Conservatives The Conservatives will "protect methods of religious slaughter, such as shechita and halal" and state that while they "want people to integrate fully into British society" that "does not mean they should have to give up the things they hold dear in their religion." The Conservative Party will scrap the Human Rights Act and introduce a British Bill of Rights "which will restore common sense to the application of human rights in the UK." The party will "stand up for British values", and for "the freedom of people of all religions – and non-religious people – to practise their beliefs in peace and safety, for example by supporting persecuted Christians in the Middle East." Prime Minister David Cameron recently said that the UK was "still a Christian country", despite 62% of Britons saying they weren't religious. In his recent Easter message the Prime Minister praised Christians for living out their beliefs in faith schools, pointed out that the Coalition had invested tens of millions for church repairs, and praised the recently passed legislation which allows local authorities to hold prayers during council meetings. "We will tackle global terrorism and the poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism while taking a patient, long-term approach to preventing conflict and state failure." The manifesto states: "We have always believed that churches, faith groups and other voluntary groups play an important and longstanding role in this country's social fabric, running foodbanks, helping the homeless, and tackling debt and addictions, such as alcoholism and gambling." On LGBT rights, the party notes their "historic introduction of gay marriage" which has "helped drive forward equality and strengthened the institution of marriage." They also promise to introduce a new law pardoning people convicted under historic "gross indecency" laws. The full manifesto can be read here. DUP The DUP write, "in the last Parliament, the DUP urged the government to take seriously international human rights abuses against Christians and other faith groups." At this election their manifesto notes they "continue to be concerned about the persecution of religious minorities." They say they "will continue to use our influence to ensure that this issue is taken seriously and that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office actively engage with the leadership of the countries in which these human rights violations occur." The DUP support a 'religious freedom' bill which would allow religious people to discriminate against gay people. The full DUP manifesto can be read here. Greens The Greens have pledged to "phase out public funding of schools run by religious organisations". They say "schools may teach about religions, but should not encourage adherence to any particular religious beliefs." The Greens also pledge to integrate academies and free schools into the local authority system and make PSHE, including sex and relationships education, compulsory. The manifesto is also committed to "ensuring that all schools that serve particular vulnerable communities, for example the Jewish, Muslim or Sikh communities, are adequately protected from sectarian attacks." The party would "uphold the principles of freedom of speech and peaceful protest, including support for vulnerable communities of all religious faiths and none." In their manifesto the party also sets plans to "make equality and diversity lessons mandatory in all schools, from the first year of primary education onwards, to combat all forms of prejudice and bullying, to promote understanding and acceptance of difference and to ensure community cohesion." They would also "implement a UK-wide strategy to tackle violence against women, including domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse, female genital mutilation and trafficking." The full manifesto can be read here. Labour The Labour Party will take "a zero-tolerance approach to hate crime, such as anti-Semitism and Islamophobia." Ed Miliband has called for 'Islamophobia' to be banned, without defining what he means by the term. He said, "We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime." "We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime." Labour applauds "those faith communities who have pioneered an inter-faith dialogue for the common good" and will "overhaul the programme to involve communities in countering extremist propaganda." The manifesto argues that "to defeat the threats of Islamist terrorism" the Government "must also engage with the personal, cultural and wider factors that turn young people to extremism." On radicalisation, Labour argues that the Prevent programme set up under the last Labour Government to stop young people becoming radicalised has had its funding cut and has "narrowed its focus." They also state that "much of the work to engage Muslim communities has been lost." The party will also implement "a much more rigorous strategy for dealing with people returning from the Syrian conflict." They state that "alongside appropriate police action and prosecution, it will be mandatory for anyone returning to engage in a de-radicalisation programme designed to confront them with the consequences of their actions." On education, Labour pledges to "introduce compulsory age-appropriate sex and relationships education. We will encourage all schools to embed character education across the curriculum, working with schools to stop the blight of homophobic bullying." They will also end "the wasteful and poorly performing Free Schools programme." "We will appoint a Global Envoy for Religious Freedom, and establish a multi-faith advisory council on religious freedom within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. And we will appoint an International LGBT Rights Envoy to promote respect for the human rights of LGBT people, and work towards the decriminalisation of homosexuality worldwide." The full manifesto can be read here. Liberal Democrats The Liberal Democrats have pledged to "allow parents to continue to choose faith-based schools within the state-funded sector and allow the establishment of new faith schools." However, the party promised to "ensure all faith schools develop an inclusive admissions policy and end unfair discrimination on grounds of faith when recruiting staff, except for those principally responsible for optional religious instruction." The LibDems are also proposing a "minimum curriculum entitlement" which will include PSHE and "age-appropriate sex and relationship education." "To ensure all children learn about a wide range of religious and nonreligious world views, religious education will be included in the core curriculum; however we will give schools the freedom to set policy on whether to hold acts of collective worship, while ensuring any such acts are strictly optional." Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg recently said that he opposed "vociferous secularism", in an interview in which he appeared to conflate secularism with atheism. The party is concerned about "religious discrimination" and seeks to "support faith and belief communities." The LibDems will "work closely with faith and community organisations, such as the Community Security Trust (which works to protect the Jewish community against antisemitic attacks) and the Muslim Council of Britain, to prevent hate crime, including at places of worship like synagogues and mosques. We are determined to combat antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate in the UK and internationally." The LibDems call for a "proportionate response" to extremism and pledge to "work with religious and community leaders, civil society groups and social media sites to counter the narratives put forward by extremists, and create the space for the expression of contrary viewpoints and religious interpretations." The party will "ensure efforts to tackle terrorism do not stigmatise or alienate Muslims or any other ethnic or faith group, and that government supports communities to help prevent those at risk of radicalisation from being drawn into illegal activity." It will also "review the process of assessing threats against different ethnic and religious communities to ensure all groups in the UK are properly protected." The full manifesto can be read here. Plaid Cymru "Plaid Cymru will work across our communities, whatever their backgrounds, to promote a Welsh civic identity. Our Welsh civic identity is inclusive, offered to anybody who chooses to make Wales their home. This will be promoted through schools, by faith and community organisations, encouraging everybody in Wales to participate in our wider Welsh society, in contrast to the UK Government's divisive and stigmatising proposals that blame particular groups." On education, Plaid Cymru pledge that "all children and young people should receive a comprehensive programme of healthy relationships education. Values of equality, tolerance and respect should be embedded in everything schools do to tackle sexist, racist, homophobic and other discriminatory bullying." The party also states that it is "committed unswervingly to human rights." The full manifesto can be read here. Scottish National Party The SNP will vote for the abolition of the House of Lords and say that an "unelected second chamber is not acceptable in a modern democracy." Their manifesto states: "Those with no democratic mandate should not be writing the laws of the land and SNP MPs will vote for the abolition of the House of Lords. The party will promote quality and protect human rights and "oppose scrapping the Human Rights Act or withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights." Their full manifesto can be found here. UKIP UKIP have issued a 'Christian Manifesto' which calls for a "muscular defence" of Christianity in the UK. In the document, Nigel Farage wrote that the UK is "fundamentally a Christian nation" with a "Christian Constitution." The party has also pledged to extend the legal concept of "reasonable accommodation", allowing religious believers to refuse services to same-sex couples. UKIP rejects multiculturalism, and seeks to "promote a unifying British culture, open to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background." The party describes this as "genuine inclusiveness" and warns that multiculturalism "has led to an alarming fragmentation of British society." The manifesto argues that different ethnic and religious groups have been "encouraged to maintain all aspects of their cultures" and this has meant they have not integrated into British society. It also warns that some of these groups have "values and customs" which "conflict with British ones." Farage said that the UK has to be "more robust in defending our Judeo-Christian culture" in the face of Islam. UKIP pledge to "uphold freedom of speech within the law as a fundamental British value." They "believe all ideas and beliefs should be open to discussion and scrutiny and we will challenge the 'culture of offence' as it risks shutting down free speech." UKIP "recognise that British values include tolerance of religion. UKIP is committed to protecting religious freedoms for all believers in the UK, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We believe, however, that those faiths and beliefs must exist firmly within a British framework. We will not condone any faith position which is itself intolerant and refuses to recognise the human rights of others." The UKIP manifesto states that the party will not "condone parallel or conflicting systems that deny equality under the law", and insists that "those attending faith-based tribunals must be informed that they cannot be forced to attend and that the rulings from such hearings may not be legally binding under British law." The party also promise support for a "mandatory reporting requirement for suspected cases of Female Genital Mutilation." They also argue that "a misplaced sensitivity to issues of race and religion, combined with fear, has been shown to have stopped many investigations into the abuse of children." On education, UKIP "will continue to monitor British values, but with a view towards combatting extremism and radicalisation, rather than criticising widely-held Judeo-Christian beliefs." The full manifesto can be read here.

Read Elsewhere

Sikh protestors force cinema chains to cancel screenings of 'blasphemous' film

The Odeon and Cineworld cinema chains in the UK have cancelled screenings of an Indian movie, Nanak Shah Fakir, following a major sit-in protest at a branch of Cineworld in Wolverhampton.

Quotes of the Week

"If PEN as a free speech organization can't defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organization is not worth the name."
Salman Rushdie.

"Church attendance has fallen through to the crypt and culturally Britain is increasingly secular and its population wonderfully, laudably tolerant."
Alexandra Swann, Commentator.

Essays of the Week

Charlie Hebdo: The literary indulgence of murder
Nick Cohen, Spectator.

Outlawing 'Islamophobia' Would Be Folly, Mr. Miliband
Charles C.W. Cooke, National Review.

Upcoming Events

Women Bishops – What difference does it make?

Tue, 26th May 2015

	Bath Student Union and university chaplains blocked comedy sketch material on Mohammed and Jesus News \| Mon, 27th Apr 2015 Student Union officials and university chaplains ordered a line featuring Mohammed cut from a student comedy show, because it caused "great offence." Bath Impact the student newspaper, reports that Union officials said the decision had been taken to maintain the 'inclusivity' of the university and to 'avoid complaints.' One of the organisers told the National Secular Society that the sketch only "had a one line reference to Mohammed" but the group was told that they "couldn't mention him at all". The Student Union showed the material to the chaplaincy, whose complaint was escalated to the Secretary of the University. The Society was then told "unofficially" that they would face disciplinary action if they performed the show as written. The Society therefore cooperated and removed the line, but the entire sketch was removed anyway- despite the 'offending' line being edited out. The chaplains also denounced the scene, which featured Jesus, as "graphic" and offensive. According to organisers of the Comedy Writing, Improvisation and Performance Society (CWIPS), the skit, called "Cooking With Christ" had to be removed when chaplains complained. Just four hours before the opening night of the show, "The Bible According to CWIPS", a Union official who attended a rehearsal told the society that the "Cooking With Christ" scene had to be excised because of the chaplaincy's objections. Ironically, the chaplaincy staged their own, separate performance of biblical scenes on the same night- which depicted Jesus being stabbed. While one member of the Comedy Society said that the Union initially "couldn't give more of an explanation" for their instruction to axe the sketch, the Society learned that the University Chaplaincy had become involved, and organisers were then told that chaplains had read the scene and had "pronounced that [it was] too graphic." The Chaplaincy is said to have described the cut sketch as "extreme", but the organisers commented that they had "worked very hard in order to make sure [the] material was enjoyable and pleasant for people of all faiths and background." The Comedy Society was forced to abide by the Union's ruling, though organisers complained that while the Union was led by elected officers, the Chaplaincy should have had no authority within the Union. Nick West, Assistant Director for "The Bible According to CWIPS", told the NSS; "At a university with such diversity of religion among students it's important to try to make sure no person feels alienated by the work we do. But the line needs to be drawn somewhere." He added in a written statement that "at no point in the show" did the Comedy Society victimise any faith or its members. "At the end of the day, it was a show based around the Bible and religion, not a show mocking it." Despite advising that the line featuring Mohammed and the "Cooking With Christ" sketch be cut, the chaplaincy commented that "freedom of speech is important and should be respected". The show also featured material on the Bible, Richard Dawkins, and a scene with God attending Jesus' school's nativity play. NSS president Terry Sanderson said: "This is another example of blasphemy codes being normalised. It is extraordinary that the mere mention of Mohammed was considered unacceptable and that students were threatened with disciplinary action. "The decision taken about the single line of dialogue mentioning Mohammed assumes that Muslim students would have been offended, and takes that as a sufficient reason to curtail these students' artistic expression. "It is also very troubling to see 'inclusivity' being used as a spurious reason to shut down parts of the performance. There is an atmosphere of hysteria around satirising or criticising Islam, particularly since the Charlie Hebdo attack. We must start reclaiming ground from those who would silence free expression and satire. "It is sheer hypocrisy from the chaplaincy to say freedom of speech should be respected while seeking to censor material lampooning Christianity." *Update 28/04/15:* This story has been amended after new information came to light. An earlier version stated that the sketch "depicted" Mohammed, in fact, the scene simply mentioned him. Additionally, organisers have informed us that material relating to Jesus was cut as well, after chaplains objected to it. *Update 05/05/15:* The Bath Atheists, Humanists & Secularists Society have written an open letter to the Students' Union and the University Secretary expressing their concerns over the incident and implications for free expression and community cohesion at the University.
	It should be politically impossible for universities to enforce blasphemy laws Opinion \| Thu, 30th Apr 2015 It should be politically toxic, publicly excruciating, there should be protests, and mass disruption to campuses when universities censor blasphemy. Where is the outrage? The censors and reactionaries are at it again. The most recent case came from Bath. A mild piece of student comedy was excised by a Student Union and the university chaplaincy – because it mentioned Mohammed, and teased Jesus. Students were "unofficially" threatened with disciplinary action if they went ahead with their performance. Last week there was Queen's University Belfast. Initially, two excuses were offered for nixing a modestly titled talk on the shockwaves of the Charlie Hebdo massacre: security (read cowardice), and the 'reputation' of the university. After the university was shamed, it offered a third reason- an omission in the filing of health and safety paperwork by the event organisers. Administrators tried to claim that this was the real reason for the conference being scrapped. Rubbish. Universities are increasingly herd-like, not daring to go it alone, and many Student Unions too seem populated by dubious figures of bovine passivity. We mustn't let them get away with it. After the Belfast scandal was made known, the University eventually appeared to backtrack and issued a statement "suggesting [the] possibility of conference going ahead" (as the Guardian put it). Hardly courageous, but it shows that pressure works. I suspect the introduction of the profit motive has played its role as well: for both students and timid, corporate university hierarchies. Students are there to get a job at the end and daren't risk any association with controversy- it will be online forever; while managers have revenue streams to protect and corporate brand reputations to manage. In short, they are more interested in profits than prophets. Too often this censorship comes from traditionally 'left wing' institutions like Student Unions. There is a stubborn strand on the left that refuses to be unequivocal in denouncing violence against people who use their rights of speech. The misinformed writers snivelling at PEN's decision to give a free speech award to Charlie Hebdo are this week's example. It's not all leftists, many realise and write that the left has a particular problem within its ranks with those who are faltering on the most important issue of liberation since the end of the Cold War. In this most recent scandal at Bath, the Student Union actually went to the chaplaincy for their blessing on what a student comedy society could perform. They went searching for the forces of reaction and they found them. Could you imagine firebrand student leaders of the 1970s or 80s siding with the clerics on a matter of blasphemy and comedy? I can't. The people on our side of the debate aren't going to throw bombs, start riots or shoot up offices. What we should do is make it absolutely impossible for any credible institution to impose blasphemy laws on its students and staff. We must give them as much hassle as we can. The reputational costs should be enormous. At university I once met an undergraduate- a law student- who said they could not take part in discussions in class because they "did not like feeling like their ideas were being questioned." Indeed. All too often, students are complicit in their own oppression and build up the neural architecture needed to familiarise themselves with- and adjust to- blasphemy- through familiarity with other types of censorship. It is therefore not as outrageous to them as it might have been: it begins with abused 'safe space' policies and it ends with blasphemy codes on campus. As for the universities: appeasement doesn't make you safer; and we all have a part to play in shaming those who try it by installing blasphemy codes for reasons of corporate cowardice. If they must be embarrassed into defending freedom- then so be it. One by one, universities can be made to rediscover their true purpose, after a long period in the moral wilderness.
	Free speech campaigners concerned by Ed Miliband’s vow to ban ‘Islamophobia’- without defining what it means News \| Wed, 29th Apr 2015 The National Secular Society and other advocates for freedom of expression have expressed alarm after Labour leader Ed Miliband set out his intention to 'outlaw' Islamophobia. Speaking with Muslim News, Mr Miliband said of 'Islamophobia': "We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime." "We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear … our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country." "We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime." Writing on Liberal Democrat Voice, Mark Wright argued that the Labour Party had "unfinished business" with so-called "religious hatred." Wright said "defenders of freedom of speech should be alarmed" at the "nebulous" proposal put forward by Ed Miliband, because they seemed to imply a return to the then-Labour Government's attempt in 2006 to "criminalise 'deliberately insulting' a religion." The article noted that Ed Miliband himself voted for the original, defeated wording of the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (now Act)- which would have seriously impinged free speech. NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "There already exists a distinct offence of religiously aggravated hate crime that carries a maximum 7 year tariff. We all want to prevent bigoted attacks on people, but given how tough the law is already – this sounds like Ed Miliband may want to revisit the 2006 legislation on 'insulting religion'. If so he'll be challenged every step of the way. "'Islamophobia' is a highly contentious and nebulous term, and at the very least, Mr Milliband needs to define what he is intending to outlaw." NSS honorary associate Maajid Nawaz, who is a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate, said "no idea is above scrutiny" and described the vague proposal as "illiberal." Professor Richard Dawkins, also an honorary associate of the NSS, has been drumming up opposition to Mr Miliband's comments on social media and called on him to explain his plans. He asked if the proposed law would prosecute Charlie Hebdo and said that if it wouldn't "it would be useful" to have a clarification of the Labour leader's comments "to explain why not." Dealing with the confusion around the term 'Islamophobia', Professor Dawkins said he thought Ed Miliband was against violent attacks against people and anti-Muslim bigotry, for which there were already applicable laws, but asked, "why privilege religion?" He challenged Ed Miliband on Twitter over whether he could "go to jail" for quoting Islamic scripture which says, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." In 2006 the National Secular Society worked along with campaign groups including the Christian Institute, and campaigners such as former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris, against the original wording of the 2006 Act, which was described at the time by the NSS as "draconian" and a "huge blow to freedom of expression." Ultimately, after a narrow single-vote defeat, a much more watered-down version of the legislation was passed into law.
	Nigel Farage calls for “muscular defence” of Christianity in the UK News \| Tue, 28th Apr 2015 Nigel Farage has said that Christianity is a "significant part" of his "vision for the future of Britain" in a special message on "UKIP Policies for Christians." The UKIP leader wrote that the UK is "fundamentally a Christian nation" and added that Christianity "should be recognised by Government at all levels." "Sadly, I think UKIP is the only major political party left in Britain that still cherishes our Judaeo-Christian heritage. I believe other parties have deliberately marginalised our nation's faith, whereas we take Christian values and traditions into consideration when making policy." Mr Farage called for a "muscular defence" of what he calls the UK's "Christian heritage" and "Christian Constitution." In a UKIP election publication called "Valuing Our Christian Heritage", the party calls for an extension of the "legal concept of 'reasonable accommodation'", which would allow believers to refuse services to same-sex couples and notes UKIP's opposition to marriage equality legislation. They say it "impinged upon the beliefs of millions of people of faith." The publication explains UKIP's policies on a range of "Christian" issues. The party will seek to make sex-selective abortion illegal and has "no plans" to change the law on the "right to die." On human trafficking, they state that "our Christian forefathers fought hard to abolish slavery and now we must fight to end it in modern-day Britain." On education, UKIP "backs faith schools provided they are open to the whole community, uphold British values, do not discriminate against any section of society and meet required educational standards." The party "will not allow primary school children to be given sex education lessons." UKIP also argue that by pulling out of the EU, the party could cut VAT for Church repairs down to 5%. NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "As is often the case with elections we are seeing the unedifying spectacle of politicians of all stripes trying to win so-called religious block votes. Attempts to win the 'Christian vote' with a promise to accommodate discrimination against gay people is particularly regressive and unwelcome. "Politicians need to wake up to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Britons are not Christians. It is unclear what UKIP mean by saying Christianity should 'be recognised by Government at all levels' but it sounds deeply inappropriate for a country where most people are not Christian." The National Secular Society recently called on Ed Miliband to clarify his comments on religious freedom in the workplace, after he appeared to suggest Labour might review workplace equality law and would "look at" how Christians can manifest their beliefs in the workplace.
	Less than 40% of would-be MPs claim a belief in God News \| Fri, 24th Apr 2015 A survey carried out by Whitehouse Consultancy has found that 33% of parliamentary candidates contesting marginal seats describe themselves as atheists. Just 37% said they believe in God, and 42% of the 225 parliamentary candidates who responded to the survey said they had no religious affiliation. Only 16% of respondents were members of the Church of England, closely followed by 12% of prospective parliamentary candidates who identified with the Roman Catholic Church. 2% of respondents said they were Jewish; likewise 2% of PPCs each said they were Buddhist and Muslim. The Whitehouse Consultancy argued that smaller religions are "poorly represented" in the survey results and that they point to a "lack of diversity" in the beliefs of parliamentary candidates. Chairman Chris Whitehouse commented, "I don't think this is only a question of how candidates are selected. It is also one of how we can encourage more people with a range of beliefs and backgrounds to get involved and be active in politics." "Given recent findings on Britain's religious beliefs, it's unsurprising that a majority of parliamentary candidates are either non-religious or atheist." Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, noted that, "while religious minorities may be under-represented, it is worth noting that non-believers are as well. "Polling shows time and time again that the vast majority of Britons don't have religious beliefs. YouGov polling conducted around Easter found that 62% of people say they are not religious. WIN/Gallup found that Britain is the sixth least religious country in the world. "There is only an issue with politicians' religious beliefs if they try to force their religious views on to others. The last parliament has seen some politicians using their positions to evangelise, which is wholly inappropriate- particularly given how irreligious society is today." The Green Party and Labour had the highest percentage of non-religious candidates, at 49% and 48% respectively. 41% of Conservative Party candidates are members of the Church of England.
	Prayers cause conflict on Northern Ireland council News \| Wed, 29th Apr 2015 Councillors in Northern Ireland have been left bitterly split after an hour long row over whether to begin council meetings with prayers. The Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council was left deadlocked for over an hour, before finally voting to say prayers at the start of official meetings – leading one councillor to warn that a "huge case" could be made to the Northern Ireland Equality Commission by staff required to attend meetings and thus forced to sit through the religious observances. UUP councillor William McCandless said: "I am annoyed that we are sitting here in a Christian country being asked to vote with or against the Lord's Prayer." He added, "Christians are being beheaded in Islamic countries, I think we need time to reflect for a moment." Sinn Fein councillor Cara McShane said that religion and politics should be separate, and according to the Coleraine Times, suggested that legal advice was needed. She also warned that "staff are compelled to be at these meeting, there is a huge case waiting to happen either with the Equality Commission or a Tribunal" if the meetings opened with prayers. McShane told her fellow councillors, "we shouldn't be shoving beliefs down people's throats." DUP councillor George Duddy said he was "disgusted" that "a prayer that we should all say every day has become a debate." NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented, "This should serve as another example to those who think local authorities in other parts of the UK should open their meetings with prayers. They are inappropriate, divisive and unnecessary." A range of proposals were considered before the vote finally passed. A twenty minute recess was needed as arguments became heated and intractable. One SDLP councillor said that it is "not very inclusive to expect members to stand outside" while prayers are being held. She added, "I don't come here to pray." An amendment was tabled suggesting that prayers be held before meetings begin – something which the National Secular Society has suggested for councillors in the rest of the UK, rather than expecting all councillors and staff to sit through prayers during official meeting time – however the suggested amendment was defeated. A full meeting of the council is needed to ratify the business of the meeting. The 1998 Northern Ireland Act states that a public authority shall "have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity" between "persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation." It also requires a public authority to have "regard" for the "desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group." Mr Evans added, "The imposition of religious observances during official meetings does nothing to promote good relations between people of different religious and non-religious views." Earlier this year the UK Government passed legislation giving English local authorities an explicit power to include prayers "or other religious observance" in their official meetings. The Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Act was opposed by the National Secular Society, which had previously won a High Court ruling that the inclusion of prayers in meetings to which councillors were summoned to attend was not lawful under the Local Government Act 1972.
	Election 2015: Where the parties stand on secularist issues Opinion \| Thu, 16th Apr 2015 Find out where the parties stand on collective worship, faith schools, multiculturalism, sex and relationships education, religion in society and a range of other secular issues. While the National Secular Society is not party political, that doesn't stop us from looking at what individual policies are on offer in the General Election. Here we present relevant policies on secularism and religion- whether good or bad- from each party. NSS members and supporters represent a broad spectrum of political opinion, and we've rated the parties impartially so that our members and supporters can decide which political party is best on the secular issues that they think are important. Conservatives The Conservatives will "protect methods of religious slaughter, such as shechita and halal" and state that while they "want people to integrate fully into British society" that "does not mean they should have to give up the things they hold dear in their religion." The Conservative Party will scrap the Human Rights Act and introduce a British Bill of Rights "which will restore common sense to the application of human rights in the UK." The party will "stand up for British values", and for "the freedom of people of all religions – and non-religious people – to practise their beliefs in peace and safety, for example by supporting persecuted Christians in the Middle East." Prime Minister David Cameron recently said that the UK was "still a Christian country", despite 62% of Britons saying they weren't religious. In his recent Easter message the Prime Minister praised Christians for living out their beliefs in faith schools, pointed out that the Coalition had invested tens of millions for church repairs, and praised the recently passed legislation which allows local authorities to hold prayers during council meetings. "We will tackle global terrorism and the poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism while taking a patient, long-term approach to preventing conflict and state failure." The manifesto states: "We have always believed that churches, faith groups and other voluntary groups play an important and longstanding role in this country's social fabric, running foodbanks, helping the homeless, and tackling debt and addictions, such as alcoholism and gambling." On LGBT rights, the party notes their "historic introduction of gay marriage" which has "helped drive forward equality and strengthened the institution of marriage." They also promise to introduce a new law pardoning people convicted under historic "gross indecency" laws. The full manifesto can be read here. DUP The DUP write, "in the last Parliament, the DUP urged the government to take seriously international human rights abuses against Christians and other faith groups." At this election their manifesto notes they "continue to be concerned about the persecution of religious minorities." They say they "will continue to use our influence to ensure that this issue is taken seriously and that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office actively engage with the leadership of the countries in which these human rights violations occur." The DUP support a 'religious freedom' bill which would allow religious people to discriminate against gay people. The full DUP manifesto can be read here. Greens The Greens have pledged to "phase out public funding of schools run by religious organisations". They say "schools may teach about religions, but should not encourage adherence to any particular religious beliefs." The Greens also pledge to integrate academies and free schools into the local authority system and make PSHE, including sex and relationships education, compulsory. The manifesto is also committed to "ensuring that all schools that serve particular vulnerable communities, for example the Jewish, Muslim or Sikh communities, are adequately protected from sectarian attacks." The party would "uphold the principles of freedom of speech and peaceful protest, including support for vulnerable communities of all religious faiths and none." In their manifesto the party also sets plans to "make equality and diversity lessons mandatory in all schools, from the first year of primary education onwards, to combat all forms of prejudice and bullying, to promote understanding and acceptance of difference and to ensure community cohesion." They would also "implement a UK-wide strategy to tackle violence against women, including domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse, female genital mutilation and trafficking." The full manifesto can be read here. Labour The Labour Party will take "a zero-tolerance approach to hate crime, such as anti-Semitism and Islamophobia." Ed Miliband has called for 'Islamophobia' to be banned, without defining what he means by the term. He said, "We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime." "We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime." Labour applauds "those faith communities who have pioneered an inter-faith dialogue for the common good" and will "overhaul the programme to involve communities in countering extremist propaganda." The manifesto argues that "to defeat the threats of Islamist terrorism" the Government "must also engage with the personal, cultural and wider factors that turn young people to extremism." On radicalisation, Labour argues that the Prevent programme set up under the last Labour Government to stop young people becoming radicalised has had its funding cut and has "narrowed its focus." They also state that "much of the work to engage Muslim communities has been lost." The party will also implement "a much more rigorous strategy for dealing with people returning from the Syrian conflict." They state that "alongside appropriate police action and prosecution, it will be mandatory for anyone returning to engage in a de-radicalisation programme designed to confront them with the consequences of their actions." On education, Labour pledges to "introduce compulsory age-appropriate sex and relationships education. We will encourage all schools to embed character education across the curriculum, working with schools to stop the blight of homophobic bullying." They will also end "the wasteful and poorly performing Free Schools programme." "We will appoint a Global Envoy for Religious Freedom, and establish a multi-faith advisory council on religious freedom within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. And we will appoint an International LGBT Rights Envoy to promote respect for the human rights of LGBT people, and work towards the decriminalisation of homosexuality worldwide." The full manifesto can be read here. Liberal Democrats The Liberal Democrats have pledged to "allow parents to continue to choose faith-based schools within the state-funded sector and allow the establishment of new faith schools." However, the party promised to "ensure all faith schools develop an inclusive admissions policy and end unfair discrimination on grounds of faith when recruiting staff, except for those principally responsible for optional religious instruction." The LibDems are also proposing a "minimum curriculum entitlement" which will include PSHE and "age-appropriate sex and relationship education." "To ensure all children learn about a wide range of religious and nonreligious world views, religious education will be included in the core curriculum; however we will give schools the freedom to set policy on whether to hold acts of collective worship, while ensuring any such acts are strictly optional." Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg recently said that he opposed "vociferous secularism", in an interview in which he appeared to conflate secularism with atheism. The party is concerned about "religious discrimination" and seeks to "support faith and belief communities." The LibDems will "work closely with faith and community organisations, such as the Community Security Trust (which works to protect the Jewish community against antisemitic attacks) and the Muslim Council of Britain, to prevent hate crime, including at places of worship like synagogues and mosques. We are determined to combat antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate in the UK and internationally." The LibDems call for a "proportionate response" to extremism and pledge to "work with religious and community leaders, civil society groups and social media sites to counter the narratives put forward by extremists, and create the space for the expression of contrary viewpoints and religious interpretations." The party will "ensure efforts to tackle terrorism do not stigmatise or alienate Muslims or any other ethnic or faith group, and that government supports communities to help prevent those at risk of radicalisation from being drawn into illegal activity." It will also "review the process of assessing threats against different ethnic and religious communities to ensure all groups in the UK are properly protected." The full manifesto can be read here. Plaid Cymru "Plaid Cymru will work across our communities, whatever their backgrounds, to promote a Welsh civic identity. Our Welsh civic identity is inclusive, offered to anybody who chooses to make Wales their home. This will be promoted through schools, by faith and community organisations, encouraging everybody in Wales to participate in our wider Welsh society, in contrast to the UK Government's divisive and stigmatising proposals that blame particular groups." On education, Plaid Cymru pledge that "all children and young people should receive a comprehensive programme of healthy relationships education. Values of equality, tolerance and respect should be embedded in everything schools do to tackle sexist, racist, homophobic and other discriminatory bullying." The party also states that it is "committed unswervingly to human rights." The full manifesto can be read here. Scottish National Party The SNP will vote for the abolition of the House of Lords and say that an "unelected second chamber is not acceptable in a modern democracy." Their manifesto states: "Those with no democratic mandate should not be writing the laws of the land and SNP MPs will vote for the abolition of the House of Lords. The party will promote quality and protect human rights and "oppose scrapping the Human Rights Act or withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights." Their full manifesto can be found here. UKIP UKIP have issued a 'Christian Manifesto' which calls for a "muscular defence" of Christianity in the UK. In the document, Nigel Farage wrote that the UK is "fundamentally a Christian nation" with a "Christian Constitution." The party has also pledged to extend the legal concept of "reasonable accommodation", allowing religious believers to refuse services to same-sex couples. UKIP rejects multiculturalism, and seeks to "promote a unifying British culture, open to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background." The party describes this as "genuine inclusiveness" and warns that multiculturalism "has led to an alarming fragmentation of British society." The manifesto argues that different ethnic and religious groups have been "encouraged to maintain all aspects of their cultures" and this has meant they have not integrated into British society. It also warns that some of these groups have "values and customs" which "conflict with British ones." Farage said that the UK has to be "more robust in defending our Judeo-Christian culture" in the face of Islam. UKIP pledge to "uphold freedom of speech within the law as a fundamental British value." They "believe all ideas and beliefs should be open to discussion and scrutiny and we will challenge the 'culture of offence' as it risks shutting down free speech." UKIP "recognise that British values include tolerance of religion. UKIP is committed to protecting religious freedoms for all believers in the UK, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We believe, however, that those faiths and beliefs must exist firmly within a British framework. We will not condone any faith position which is itself intolerant and refuses to recognise the human rights of others." The UKIP manifesto states that the party will not "condone parallel or conflicting systems that deny equality under the law", and insists that "those attending faith-based tribunals must be informed that they cannot be forced to attend and that the rulings from such hearings may not be legally binding under British law." The party also promise support for a "mandatory reporting requirement for suspected cases of Female Genital Mutilation." They also argue that "a misplaced sensitivity to issues of race and religion, combined with fear, has been shown to have stopped many investigations into the abuse of children." On education, UKIP "will continue to monitor British values, but with a view towards combatting extremism and radicalisation, rather than criticising widely-held Judeo-Christian beliefs." The full manifesto can be read here.