Newsline 1 November 2013

NSS joins campaign to oppose Lobbying Bill

News | Thu, 31st Oct 2013

The controversial Lobbying Bill could cause issue-based campaigners and charities to be "frozen out" of politics, a columnist has warned.

Stephen Naysmith said in The Herald newspaper that "if the Lobbying Bill has the suffocating effect many people in the charity world fear", it won't be easy to hear from groups which stick up for the "marginalised and disenfranchised".

A special commission supported by close to 40 charities, campaign groups and academics, published a report yesterday urging the Government to put the Bill on hold.

The Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which is backed by various groups including The Christian Institute and the National Secular Society, warned that freedom of expression could be "severely restricted" and "unduly" curtailed.

The report was launched in the House of Lords this week, in a meeting attended by 26 Peers and 50 representatives of voluntary groups.

The commission's chair, former Bishop of Oxford Lord Harries, warned in the foreword to the report that the Bill "risks profoundly undermining the very fabric of our democracy".

The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill introduces new rules to control how not-for-profit organisations speak out on issues in the 365 days before a general election.

Lord Harries said: "Whether we agree with these organisations or not, their role is essential in order to have an informed, engaged electorate."

Full-page adverts appeared in three national newspapers last week calling for change to the legislation.

Over 40 voluntary groups from many different backgrounds backed the ads, saying they "may not see eye to eye" on many issues, but they are "united in concern" over this Bill which could undermine democracy.

The Bill was debated in the House of Lords last week, and Mr Naysmith says it was "savaged" by Peers.

Only three Peers supported the Bill out of 40 who spoke, and it will reach committee stage next Tuesday.

Mr Naysmith said: "The objections aren't going away, but are so far going unheard by politicians."

The Government says charities and campaign groups are not intended to be affected.

NSS joins campaign opposing restrictions on Freedom of Information requests

News | Thu, 31st Oct 2013

The National Secular Society has joined with over 70 other campaign groups, charities and press bodies in an effort to persuade Prime Minister David Cameron to drop proposals to restrict the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.

The alliance of organisations says the proposals are not compatible with the Prime Minister's stated aim of making the UK "the most open and transparent government in the world".

In November 2012 the UK government announced that it was considering a series of proposals to make it easier for public authorities to refuse FOI requests on cost grounds. These proposals are still being considered.

The government says the changes are intended to address the "disproportionate burdens" caused by requesters who make "industrial use" of the FOI Act. But the 76 organisations say "the proposals would restrict access by all users, including those making occasional requests of modest scope".

FOI requests can be refused if the cost of finding the requested information exceeds certain limits. The government says it is considering reducing these limits, which would lead to many more requests being refused.

It is also proposing to allow more activities to be taken into account when calculating whether the limit has been reached. Instead of only counting the cost of finding and extracting the information, it also wants to include the cost of considering whether or not to release it. Other possible restrictions are also being considered.

The organisations say "Many requests of substantial public interest would be refused under these proposals regardless of the benefits of disclosure. They would have a severe effect on the operation of the FOI Act."

They continue: "We find it difficult to reconcile the ambition that the UK should be the world leader in openness with the government's proposals to restrict the FOI Act, which is a critical element of the UK's openness arrangements. Many requests of substantial public interest would be refused under these proposals regardless of the benefits of disclosure. We hope that the government will mark that commitment by announcing that it will not be bringing forward proposals to restrict the Act."

The joint letter, which has been coordinated by the Campaign for Freedom of Information, has also been signed by: Action against Medical Accidents, Action on Hearing Loss, Against Violence & Abuse, Animal Aid, Article 19, Big Brother Watch, British Humanist Association, British Institute of Human Rights, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, Broken Rainbow UK, BUAV, Campaign Against Arms Trade, Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, Children are unbeatable! Alliance, Compact Voice, Corporate Responsibility Coalition, Corporate Watch, Crucible Centre for Human Rights Research, Daily Mail, Democratic Society, Equanomics-UK, Friends of the Earth, Friends Families and Travellers Community Base, Full Fact, Gender Identity Research and Education Society, Guardian News & Media, Heather Brooke, Inclusion London, Indigenous Peoples Links, Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust, International Records Management Trust, Involve, Jubilee Debt Campaign, JUST West Yorkshire, Law Centres Network, Law Society Gazette, League Against Cruel Sports, Leigh Day, Liberty, London Evening Standard Independent & Independent on Sunday, London Mining Network, Migrants' Rights Network, Mind, MySociety, National Secular Society, National Union of Journalists, Newspaper Society, OneKind, Open Democracy, Open Knowledge Foundation, Open Rights Group, OpenCorporates, People & Planet, Practical Participation, Press Gazette, Prisoners' Advice Service, Public Concern at Work, Public Interest Investigations, Public Interest Research Centre, Publish What You Fund, Race on the Agenda, Refugee Council, Republic, Request Initiative, Rights Watch (UK), RoadPeace, Save FOI, Society of Editors, Spinwatch, Taxpayers' Alliance, The Press in York, Transform Justice, Unlock Democracy and Women's Resource Centre.

Government rules out guidance to deter evangelism in schools

News | Thu, 31st Oct 2013

The Government has ruled out national guidance on external visitors to schools, following concerns from the National Secular Society that many schools were being used by religious groups as a base for evangelism.

New robust guidance was called for by the NSS as part of its Evangelism in Schools report which highlighted a growing trend of evangelical religious groups gaining access to publicly funded schools as part of their missionary work.

The report revealed how evangelical Christians have adopted a deliberate strategy of using publicly funded schools as places to make 'God's good news' known to children, many of whom would otherwise have little or no contact with the Church or religious groups.

Responding to the report, Elizabeth Truss MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Education and Childcare, said "schools should be trusted to observe best practice and fulfil their legal obligations". She said any specific concerns should be raised with the school and Ofsted.

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "Allowing evangelical organisations to set up 'prayer spaces' and deliver religious education and school worship fails the objectivity test and undermines the religious freedom of young people. It also denies parents the right to a state education for their child that doesn't run counter to their own religious and philosophical convictions.

"While pupils' education can be enhanced by the input made by external contributors, it is clear that some visitors are primarily concerned with evangelisation rather than education. The Government's 'light touch' approach makes it is especially important for head teachers to be vigilant to ensure their schools are not offering a platform to groups seeking to use our state education system for their own evangelical ends."

Existing guidance from the National Association of Teachers of RE (NATRE) recommends that religious visitors "should avoiding any hidden agenda to 'convert' or proselytise". The National Secular Society has called for schools and local authorities to publish their own external visitor's policy which expressly forbids evangelism and the promotion of partisan religious views in the classroom.

Read the National secular Society's report into evangelism in schools

Courts are secular, says top family law judge

News | Wed, 30th Oct 2013

A leading family law judge has said that courts are secular – and so are judges.

Sir James Munby, president of the Family Law Division, said in a keynote speech (pdf) at the Law Society's Family Law Annual Conference: "Happily for us, the days are past when the business of the judges was the enforcement of morals or religious belief."

But balancing the needs of so many competing opinions and beliefs in a largely secular and religiously plural society presented an "enormous challenge".

"We live in a society, which on many of the medical, social and religious topics that the courts recently have to grapple with, no longer speaks with one voice," he said. "These are topics on which men and women of different faiths or no faith at all hold starkly different views. All of these views are entitled to the greatest respect, but it is not for a judge to choose between them."

Despite the country having an established church, he said: "We live in this country in a democratic and pluralist society in a secular state, not a theocracy. Judges have long since abandoned their pretensions to be the guardians of public morality".

It was not always so, said Sir James. He said that in Victorian times judges were regarded as protectors of morality and of the Christian faith. He cited some shocking examples of cruelly moralising judges, including the case of Annie Besant who was a leader of the National Secular Society in the mid-19^thcentury. Munby said:

The high Victorian approach is wonderfully if appallingly exemplified by Re Besant in 1878 where it was held that the publication by the mother, the redoubtable Annie Besant, of a book condemned by a jury as an obscene libel was, in itself, sufficient grounds for removing her 7-year-old daughter from her custody. The obscene libel which had these terrible consequences for both the mother and her child was nothing worse than a treatise on contraceptive methods. There was nothing at all that we would find obscene in the book; it simply described and recommended methods of birth control.

The most striking application of this approach was the practice, almost universally adopted, of denying an adulterous wife not merely custody of, but even access to her children. As Sir Cresswell Cresswell said in 1862 it would "have a salutary effect in the interests of public morality that it should be known that a woman, if found guilty of adultery, will forfeit, as far as this Court is concerned, all right to the custody of, or access to her children".

Nowadays it is very different. He warned: "A secular judge must be wary of straying across the well-recognised divide between church and state." It is, he said, not for a judge to weigh one religion against another, stressing the court recognises no religious distinctions and generally speaking, passes no judgment on religious beliefs or on the tenets, doctrines or rules of any particular section of society.

"All are entitled to equal respect, so long as they are 'legally and socially acceptable' and not 'immoral or socially obnoxious' or 'pernicious', he said.

He cited some cases from as recently as the 1950s in which judges had considered it their duty to enforce 'Christian morality' on people like homosexuals. Now he says such judgements seem "as remote as Ninevah or Babylon".

Strasbourg jurisprudence, he stressed, is to the same effect, forbidding the state to determine the validity of religious beliefs and imposing a duty of neutrality and impartiality.

Munby said:

Judges are no longer custos morum of the people, and if they are they have to take the people's customs as they find them, not as they or others might wish them to be. Once upon a time the perceived function of the judges was to promote virtue and discourage vice and immorality. I doubt one would now hear that from the judicial Bench. Today, surely, the judicial task is to assess matters by the standards of reasonable men and women in 2013 – not, I would add, by the standards of their parents in 1970 – and having regard to the ever changing nature of our world: changes in our understanding of the natural world, technological changes, changes in social standards and, perhaps most important of all, changes in social attitudes...

We live, or strive to live, in a tolerant society increasingly alive to the need to guard against the tyranny which majority opinion may impose on those who, for whatever reason, comprise a small, weak, unpopular or voiceless minority. Although historically this country is part of the Christian west and, although it has an established church which is Christian, we sit as secular judges serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths, sworn to do justice 'to all manner of people'. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular State not a theocracy.

Religion – whatever the particular believer's faith – is not the business of government or of the secular courts, though the courts will, of course, pay every respect to the individual's or family's religious principles. Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 demands no less.

The starting point of the common law is thus respect for an individual's religious principles, coupled with an essentially neutral view of religious beliefs and a benevolent tolerance of cultural and religious diversity. A secular judge must be wary of straying across the well-recognised divide between church and State. It is not for a judge to weigh one religion against another. The court recognises no religious distinctions and, generally speaking, passes no judgment on religious beliefs or on the tenets, doctrines or rules of any particular section of society. All are entitled to equal respect, so long as they are "legally and socially acceptable" and not "immoral or socially obnoxious" or "pernicious."

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "This is a most reassuring speech from a very high profile judge. The days of judges using their benches to preach Christianity and claim that the Book of Common Prayer is the basis of British law are gone, and not a moment too soon. The courts must remain secular and provide justice without prejudice for everyone who appears in them."

However, Mr Sanderson said that it was increasingly difficult for judges to avoid making judgements on religious doctrine as more and more claims of religious discrimination were coming before them.

"Having to decide for instance whether it is an Islamic duty for a woman to wear a niqab, as some have claimed, or for a Christian to wear a cross at work even when it poses a health and safety risk, means that judges are being required to rule on doctrinal matters that should be of no concern to them. Living in a diverse society means a secular approach is the only fair one, but it also makes a judge's duty to maintain religious impartiality very difficult."

Read the speech in full (pdf)

Scotland’s young people deserve better than this

Opinion | Tue, 29th Oct 2013

Young people have a human right to sexual health and relationships education. Something which the religious minority in Scotland is taking away, argues Gary McLelland.

Scotland, like many areas, is working to promote safe and healthy relationships, especially among its younger citizens.

As with many issues in Scottish education, religious sectarian divides exist to the detriment of youngsters.

The current guidance from the Scottish Government on sexual health and relationships education comes from a circular issued in 2001. This was produced just before the repeal of Section 28 (2A in Scotland), however as the guidance states, this was a key factor for consideration in the document.

The 2001 guidance states quite clearly that:

"Programmes of sex education should present facts in an objective, balanced and sensitive manner within a framework of sound values and an awareness of the law on sexual behaviour."

This was, at the time, a welcome progressive move from the Scottish Government, an acknowledgement that young people have a human right to appropriate factual education about sexual health and relationships, and given the political environment at the time, was clearly a sign of a move towards a progressive secular Scotland, where the reactionary cries of religious fanatics was being firmly put in its place.

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has made LGBT equality a cornerstone of his political career, the slogan 'It Gets Better' is used to denote his party's alliance with equality.

This image of progressive equality has taken a bit of a battering recently, with the discussions around the introduction of same-sex marriage. Religious groups have been the most vocal in Scotland against the introduction of marriage equality north of the border, with the meek and mild Church of Scotland being forced into embarrassing anti-social positions.

Despite the fact that many of Scotland's religious citizens, including the majority of Roman Catholics, are in favour of marriage equality, and the Quaker Church in Scotland of the opinion that it would strengthen the institution of marriage, religious groups have not been shy in queuing up to claim 'religious persecution'. Despite the Scottish Government's clear plans to legislate for same-sex marriage, it has held a lengthy consultation period, seeking a range of views on either side.

It seems that despite their previous commitment to equality and a progressive secular society, the Scottish Government is keen not to offend any religious groups. So much so that they are intent to legislate a 'conscience clause' or backdoor opt-out for any person who considers their religious beliefs to overrule equality.

Not content with ensuring that any religious groups can discriminate against same-sex couples whilst they act on behalf of the State to solemnise marriages, the Scottish Government has now gone one further in effectively making sexual health, relationships and parenthood education optional.

In a draft revision of the 2001 Circular, the Scottish Government has inserted a very vague conscience clause:

"In issuing this guidance it is the Scottish Government's expectation that if a teacher, child or young person is asked to do something against his or her conscience, he or she should be able to raise this with the school or local authority."

This clause is worryingly vague and has been written, by the Scottish Government's own admission, as a response to the proposed legislation on same-sex marriage. This is clearly an attempt by the Government to stop the requirement (of 2001) that teachers teach the law.

Even more worryingly is that this opt-out now applies to pupils as well. Unless this clause is seriously revised, or removed, we may see a situation in Scotland where religious teachers are not expected to teach the law, and parents and pupils may remove themselves.

It seems, for the Scottish Government at least, the vocal views of the religious minority have trumped the reasoned and sensible majority, and that the education of young Scots comes a mere second to the hurt feelings of the Godly.

As Scotland moves towards one of the most important periods in 300 years, is the Scottish Government really content to treat its young citizens in such a childish way.

The consultation can be viewed here.

Letters to editors: a useful tool for campaigners

Opinion | Tue, 29th Oct 2013

When you're active in campaigns that aim to change things in society, it can often be difficult to get your voice heard in the media. Groups with a message that seems radical or a threat to the status quo might be treated with suspicion, even hostility, by editors.

Secularists fall into this category. We are proposing something that is, actually, positive and well-established (the United States has had a secular constitution for centuries, the French have had theirs since 1905 and many other nations have a formal separation between church and state). But somehow some religious people have got it into their heads that we are threatening their "religious freedom", that we are trying to destroy their faith.

Consequently, we have a lot of opposition to deal with. Sometimes it is irrational, sometimes it has some basis. But it is difficult to get a balanced hearing when religion is so ingrained in the media, with special correspondents devoted to it on most newspapers and the BBC having its very own dedicated department.

They won't let us on Thought for the Day (or Pause for Thought) and our representatives are always given a tough ride when they do manage to get interviews on radio and TV.

But there is one area of the media where we can more easily get our voice heard and that is in the correspondence columns of newspapers. We all have opinions and this is one way of getting them out for discussion.

We have always encouraged secularists to make full use of the letters pages to contradict some of the wilder claims made by religious spokespeople (who long ago learned to dominate those columns). And we repeat our plea – use your local paper to get the message of secularism into the mainstream for debate. All of us can do our bit in this area. Just be rational, well-informed and brief.

And to give a little encouragement, here are two letters of interest from secularists that have been published this week, and one from a Christian as an example of the kind of thing that needs to be rebutted.

The first was from Charlie Klendjian, secretary of the Lawyers Secular Society, who wrote to the Law Society Gazette in response to this book review:

"I see the Gazette is wading into the choppy waters of religion and the law (Book Review: Islam, Sharia and Alternative Dispute Resolution, 21 October).

"The reviewer, Mr Thomson, says 'English law and sharia law are two distinct jurisdictions'. Yes, 'distinct' is certainly one way of putting it. The distinction between English law and sharia law is hardly trivial: even in the context of alternative dispute resolution, rather than a penal code, the difference can mean eye-watering consequences for domestic abuse of women, for gender equality generally and for the rights of children. Worryingly, although Mr Thomson recognises these two jurisdictions are 'distinct', he doesn't tell us which one ought to take precedence or indeed which one he prefers.

"He goes on to talk of the two jurisdictions 'enjoying a mutually positive interaction and reasonable accommodation'.

"I beg to differ. There is nothing positive about a legal system such as sharia, which routinely and explicitly treats human beings who happen to be female as second-class citizens, and which does not give paramount importance to the interests of children in family law matters. Accommodation here is merely a polite word for appeasement.

"One definition of a country is a set of people all subject to the same obligations and all enjoying the same rights. Accommodating sharia law makes a mockery of that noble principle. It sacrifices the priceless idea of legal equality on the high altar of 'cultural sensitivity', effectively sanctioning lower-grade legal status for those people who are considered different. This is the very antithesis of a good quality legal system.

"English law should not — it must not — accommodate sharia law. Equality before the law has served humans very well and I see no reason whatsoever to depart from it. I would very much hope that other lawyers might agree with me on this.

"Through the Lawyers' Secular Society and my involvement with similar organisations such as the National Secular Society and One Law For All, I have met countless women who came to the UK precisely to escape sharia law, only to see it politely sanctioned here with chillingly neutral words such as 'sensitivity' and 'accommodation'.

"I would ask your readers to go back to basics. No, in fact I would beg them. I would ask your readers this: would you accept any encroachment, however small, that chipped away at equality before the law? If your answer is no, and I hope it is, then ask yourself this: why make an exception for sharia law?"

NSS member Veronica Wikman wrote this to the Scotsman:

"It is difficult to persuade an adult who has been raised outside a religious environment to accept the claims made by monotheistic religions. It is, therefore, in the interest of evangelising religions, such as Christianity, to access children. Due to their natural immaturity, children are easy to mould and can be taught to adopt a reverential and unquestioning attitude towards religion and religious figures of authority.

"Religious belief is falling quite rapidly in Scotland. According to the latest census, the number of non-believers has now grown to 37%, outnumbering the members of the Church of Scotland. Consequently, the number of children enrolled in Sunday school, i.e. the next generation of church-goers, is also falling.

"This is a big problem for the churches, which is why the practise of automatically enrolling school children in state-sponsored prayers and worship (religious observance) is so appealing for them. While it is understandable that the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church would rather retain their power and influence over our state education system and not give up their privileged position, it is unacceptable and indefensible.

"As parents, we should not be forced to give religious organisations joint custody of our children in exchange for a state education. We should not be coerced into accepting evangelising activities for our children in order to avoid segregation and disadvantage.

"Religious observance equates to religious indoctrination. Granting unelected religious representatives seats on our education committees is an abuse of the democratic process.

"No amount of euphemistic language from the likes of Michael McGrath, director of the Scottish Catholic Education Service, and Rev David Robertson, director of Solas Centre for Public Christianity (Friends of The Scotsman, 25 October), is going to change these facts."

On the other hand, the lead letter in last week's Church of England Newspaper came from Philippa Clark of Birmingham. It is when we see this kind of thing that we need to get tapping out our responses:

"I read the article "Evangelicals attacked for school work" (18 October) about the report produced by the National Secular Society (NSS) and noted there was response from only one of the groups mentioned in it. This organisation, the NSS, seems to have influence way beyond its size with its self-selected role of attacking Christianity in the public sphere at every opportunity.

"When is any senior bishop going to stand up and proclaim that we have a great national heritage entirely based on the Christian faith? When is the Church of England going to start resisting secularism in all its forms and the incursion of other faiths? There is no other way to maintain freedom for all in our country. As Peter Mullen wrote in his article: "In other words, if Christianity goes, the lot goes with it."

"I hope everyone remembers that one day we will all be held accountable for our actions by almighty God."

It's beholden on all of us to argue against this kind of thinking which is, unfortunately, increasingly familiar in the media. Please remember, next time you open your local paper – it has a ready platform to inform your fellow readers about the benefits of secularism, and to reassure religious people that we aren't out to get them. Do use it.

Muslim taxi driver penalised for refusing to carry disabled woman’s assistance dog

News | Wed, 30th Oct 2013

A Muslim taxi driver in East Sussex has been given 12 penalty points after he refused to carry a disabled woman in his cab because she had an assistance dog with her.

He claimed it was because of religious objections to the dog that he told the woman to find another taxi.

However, anti-discrimination legislation clearly states that taxi drivers cannot discriminate on grounds of disability.

The driver contacted his local imam for advice and was told that he should have taken the woman and her dog and then atoned for the religious breach later.

Wealden District Council's licensing sub-committee discussed the matter on 2 October, and considered whether the driver was still considered a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence.

The committee decided that the driver, who was not identified, had sought religious direction on the matter, and that he was now fully aware of his duties as a licensed driver and that he should not lose his job as a result of the incident.

Dave Stitchman, owner of East Grinstead's King of the Road Cars taxi firm, said he would have respected the driver's religious beliefs. He told the local newspaper: "I have not ever had a Muslim driver at the firm but we once had a Turkish man who just didn't turn up on his first day. Personally I would have tried to resolve the situation quickly to help both the taxi driver and the client.

"I'm not too sure what the rules of Ramadan are so I would have a quick look on the internet and tell the driver what he can and can't do. I would explain the situation to the client and be honest and up front about the reason why the driver feels the way he does."

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "There seems to be some confusion here about what the law permits. The Equalities legislation makes it quite clear that services cannot be refused on the grounds of disability and this taxi driver was clearly in the wrong trying to put his religion before the law.

"Mr Stitchman seems to think that it would have been OK to put the driver's beliefs above the needs of his customer. It is not. Leaving a disabled person potentially high and dry like this simply cannot be countenanced. Suppose there had been no other taxis, what then?"