Newsline 12 July 2013

Has your subscription to the NSS expired?

The NSS is making waves on the issues that concern us all. But we can't do it without your support. Please renew your membership today or if you aren't already a member, please join. Together we can make a real difference to the creeping religionisation of our schools and to ensure that our society becomes secular and safe for everyone.

Thanks to everyone who responded last week – we really appreciate your commitment.

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

News, Blogs & Opinion

	Will the UN finally bring the Vatican to account for its child abuse crimes? Opinion \| Thu, 11th Jul 2013 As a United Nations Committee on children's rights confronts the Vatican on its abysmal record on clerical paedophilia and criminal cover-ups, Keith Porteous Wood describes his role in bringing the Holy See to account. Hardly a month passes without a further scandal emerging of child rape and other sexual violence by clerics acting under the auspices of the Catholic Church. In the first week of July (2013), as well as a scandal with the Vatican Bank that resulted in its top two executives being fired, there was the release of devastating court papers on the RC Diocese of Milwaukee in which countless boys in a Catholic school for the deaf were abused, presumably chosen because of their reduced capacity to communicate. An attorney for some of the victims alleges that there were more than 8,000 cases of abuse by more than 100 staff. A harrowing film Mea Maxima Culpa has been made about this. The diocese has declared itself bankrupt, limiting the funds available to victims of abuse. The Vatican, under its diplomatic nom de plume The Holy See, is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which incurs a long list of strict obligations. One of these is five-yearly reporting of the challenges encountered in conforming to the Convention. But the Vatican only filed its report, due in 1997, in 2011. I complained about the failure to file — under the kind aegis of IHEU — on the floor of the UN Human Rights Council in 2009, 2010 and 2011 (shortly before the eventual submission of the report, which I believe my intervention prompted). The Committee on the Rights of the Child examined the report and invited interested parties to make submissions, which we did, commenting on the many ways in which the Vatican fell short of its Convention obligations. On the basis of these submissions, the Committee invited a small number of witnesses to testify at a private session in Geneva. Two victims' organisations were represented: the largest one called SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) and the Survivors' Voice Europe (with NSS member Sue Cox), and myself representing Geoffrey Robertson QC (author of The Case of the Pope – essential reading), IHEU as well as the National Secular Society. With the benefit of the written and oral evidence, the Committee, for the first time, confronted the issue head-on with the Vatican. In their list of issues raised with the Vatican the Committee asked: "In the light of the recognition by the Holy See of sexual violence against children committed by members of the clergy, brothers and nuns in numerous countries around the world, and given the scale of the abuses" in respect of every case of abuse "committed by members of the clergy, brothers and nuns" (in summary): (a) Whether those accused were removed or not from contact with children (b) Whether reporting to secular authorities was mandatory (c) Whether children were supported when making accusations and whether they were silenced (d) What was the outcome in canon law trials and whether there was co-operation with authorities in the countries concerned (e) What assistance was given to victims (f) What preventative measures are in place Questions were also asked about the Magdalene Laundries run by nuns in Ireland until their closure in 1996, where inmates (some of whom were girls) were used as forced labour. In my opinion, having seen the evidence, none of these questions can honestly be answered in a way that will satisfy the Committee. And that presents the new Pope with a dilemma. His predecessors have flouted the Convention shamelessly while at the same time exploiting the authority that being a signatory brings to seek to force Catholic dogma on other countries, for example so-called "pro-life" positions. Pope Francis has already said that he will "act decisively" over clerical paedophiles, but doing so will take more than the slick PR we have seen so far; it is a Herculean task. More challenging even than tackling the huge scale and the worldwide spread of this abuse could be making the necessary complete change to the Vatican culture of all his predecessors. And his answers to these questions, and more importantly his actions, will reveal whether he has the willingness and the clout to root out the corruption. I'm convinced that he was appointed to do just this, and that his predecessor was fired because of his unwillingness to even try. The evidence of Benedict's complicity in cover-ups is clear and continues to mount up, and that was another reason he had to go. The world and regulatory authorities are running out of patience with the Vatican's harbouring of criminality and criminals, whether over money-laundering or child rape. Francis's biggest challenge, and his papacy, will be judged on his success in these areas. Our actions have generated worldwide publicity for this issue. I am well aware that most abuse occurs outside institutions, but that is not a reason to ignore it. Indeed religious institutions are prone to abuse because of the power wielded by those in authority and in some cases their inevitable pent up sexual frustration. We accept that neither Catholic nor Christian institutions have a monopoly on this, and indeed a Jewish issue has just hit the news. We also recognise that there has been a considerable amount of physical or psychological violence in such institutions which has scarred victims.
	Tribunal rules that ultra-Orthodox Jewish man who wouldn’t work on Shabbat is entitled to benefits News \| Mon, 8th Jul 2013 An ultra-Orthodox (Charedi) Jewish man who refused to work on Shabbat has won an appeal against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) after he was denied Jobseeker's Allowance for over six months. A tribunal ordered the DWP to pay Jacob Slinger from Manchester £1,500 of the benefits. It also called on other Jewish people similarly denied benefits to come forward. Judge David Hewitt said that a hearing of the DWP's social entitlement chamber, which adjudicates benefits disputes, had been wrong to deny Mr Slinger the £56.80 per week benefit. Mr Slinger, a 19 year old former student, left his course last year and applied for the benefit. But the Jobcentre in Prestwich refused his application on the basis that he had stipulated he would not work on Friday afternoons and Saturdays to observe Shabbat. This was deemed "not reasonable". Mr Slinger claimed that he and his family had been forced into poverty as a result of the ruling. "My grandmother used every penny of her savings to support me," he said. Regulations state that jobseekers must be available to work up for a minimum of 35 hours a week, which Mr Slinger had agreed to. In fact, the tribunal was told that he had made himself available for 53 hours a week. Mr Hewitt said: "Mr Slinger has demonstrated that, even within the restraints he has set himself, he has reasonable prospects of securing employment and he is both available for and actively seeking work. If my understanding is correct, their original decision is found to be wrong. If people have been turned down for these reasons, they should make an appeal to this tribunal." Commenting on the outcome, Jason Coppel QC, an expert in social security law, said he was not aware of such a decision being made by a tribunal before, and that it had implications for the government's new universal credit, and could affect Christians, Muslims and others, as well as Jews. A DWP spokesperson said: "We will look at this judgement carefully and consider if we need to make any changes to the guidance given to Jobcentre Plus staff." There could yet be a series of appeals about decision, thought to be the first of its kind.
	Christian B&B owners who refused gay couple a room lose their appeal News \| Tue, 9th Jul 2013 The Christian owner of a bed and breakfast who was found guilty of discrimination after she refused a double room to a gay couple has lost her latest appeal. She is now planning to take the issue to the Supreme Court. The Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson said in his ruling at the Court of Appeal today that in his opinion it was a matter of indirect rather than direct discrimination, which can be lawful if the policy is justified. But he was bound to follow a previous ruling that had found direct discrimination in the case. The ruling relates to a bed and breakfast establishment in Cookham, Berkshire run by Susanne Wilkinson, who says she was trying to uphold her beliefs about marriage when she turned away gay couple, Michael Black and John Morgan in 2010. The couple issued proceedings against Mrs Wilkinson and in October 2012 a county court ruled that her policy directly discriminates against gay couples. The court ordered her to pay £3,600 in damages. In looking at justification, the Court acknowledged that religious rights are of equal importance to sexual orientation rights. However, in this particular case, the Court said Mrs Wilkinson's policy would not be justified because she could convert her B&B to single bed accommodation without it having a fatal economic impact on her. Permission has been granted for Mrs Wilkinson to appeal, and her case could be joined with that of Peter and Hazelmary Bull, other hotel owners who similarly refused to accommodate a gay couple, so that the Supreme Court can hear both cases together. Mrs Wilkinson's case is being financed by The Christian Institute. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "These are important cases that could have wide-ranging consequences for the rights of gay people. If it is OK to cite religious conscience in order to deny them hotel rooms what other service provider might decide that they don't want to serve gay people? Shops? Restaurants? "It is humiliating and degrading to be treated in this way, and if Mrs Wilkinson and the Bulls don't want to serve gay people, they shouldn't be running a business that is open to the public."
	New evidence that churches are completely out of step with society News \| Fri, 5th Jul 2013 New research for the Westminster Faith Debates shows that the Church of England is not only wildly out of step with the country at large, but also with its own members. The polling — conducted by Yougov among over 4,000 people — covers issues such as abortion, attitudes to sex and what role women should have in the church. On the issue of abortion, the views of people with religious affiliations do not differ much from the population as a whole. The research shows that support for abortion rights is growing in both groups. The poll shows that 43% of people who identify with a religion are in favour of keeping or raising the current 24 week limit (compared with 46% of the general population), 30% would like to see it lowered (compared with 28%), and 9% support a ban (compared with 7%). The remainder of people say they 'don't know'. Even though the Roman Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always wrong and should be illegal, only 14% of Catholics in this country are in favour of a ban. Although a significant number of people believe that life begins at conception it doesn't indicate that they oppose abortion. 44% of people believe that human life begins at conception, 30% at some time during pregnancy, 17% when the baby is born and 8% don't know. Even among those who think life begins at conception, three quarters believe abortion is acceptable up to 12 weeks and half believe it should be allowed up to 20 weeks. Among the religious people surveyed, Catholics, Muslims and Baptists are the most hostile to abortion, but only about half would like to see the law changed. 14% of Catholics surveyed support a ban and 33% would like to see the 24 week limit lowered. 30% of Muslims surveyed support a ban and 16% would like to see the 24 week limit lowered. Those who say they rely on external religious sources for guidance, and whose religion offers an anti-abortion message, are, unsurprisingly, the most likely to be hostile to abortion. The survey finds that most people in Great Britain — including religious people — rely most on their own judgment or feelings or the advice of family and friends for guidance. Among the population as a whole, anti-abortion sentiment is declining and support for current abortion law is growing. Comparisons with earlier YouGov polls reveal that the percentage of the population who would like to see a ban on abortion has fallen from 12% in 2005 to 7% today. Of those who expressed a view, support for keeping (or even relaxing) the current 24 week limit has risen by about one-third to a clear majority (57%) today. On the issue of contraception — although the Catholic Church condemns the use of birth control, only 9% of Catholics in the survey said they would feel guilty about using it. When it comes to extra-marital sex, less than 60% of Catholics would feel guilty about it — the same proportion as Anglicans, and indeed the general population. The guiltiest are Baptists and Pentecostals — almost 90% of those surveyed say they would feel guilty about extra-marital sex. The least guilty are those of no religion — only half would feel guilty about extra-marital sex. Four times as many religious people (20%) say they would feel guilty about pre-marital sex as non-religious people (5%). More than twice as many religious people (33%) say they would feel guilty about using pornography for sexual stimulation as non-religious people (15%). Interestingly, there is little difference between nominal and practising Catholics (about 30% would feel guilty) about the use of porn, whereas many more practising Anglicans (55%) would feel guilty than nominal Anglicans (30%). On the issue of religion's treatment of women, there was overwhelming disapproval. Only 8% of the population express approval of the Church of England's current policies towards women — and that includes Anglicans. Age, gender, social class, and educational level do not make any appreciable difference to this proportion. The figure falls to 3% among those who don't affiliate with any religion. Only 11% of Anglican adherents (nominal Anglicans) support their Church's policies. More Muslims (26%) than Anglicans approve. Amongst actively practising Anglicans, only 16% express approval. Even the most devout and obedient of Anglicans (7% of the total), only a quarter express approval of the Church of England's current policies towards women. There is even more disapproval of the Catholic Church's policies. Only 6% of the population express approval of the Catholic Church's current policies towards women — and that includes Catholics. More Catholics than Anglicans approve of their Church's policies — 22% compared with 11%, but it is still a small proportion. Amongst practising Catholics that figure rises to 31%, and to about half of Catholics who are most respectful of Church teaching. The overwhelming majority of people, both religious and non-religious, think religions would be better off with more women leaders. Professor Linda Woodhead who has led this research commented: "These new findings show that the churches are seriously out of step not only with society but with their own members. In failing to allow women's leadership in the churches, church leaders are privileging the views of a tiny, disproportionately male, group of people over the views of the vast majority of people in their own churches and in the country as a whole." Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "This research is further confirmation of what has been very obvious for some time now — the churches are not only out of step with society, they are at odds with it. They do not even reflect the views of their own members. The question then becomes — why does the Government pay so much attention to them and give them so much influence? "More to the point, why are they being given such influence over our education system to perpetuate ideas that very few people support — in fact, that most people are appalled by?" Read the whole report here.
	Our secular society is wiser than the Church Opinion \| Wed, 10th Jul 2013 "There was noticeable hostility to the view of the Churches," the Archbishop of Canterbury told the General Synod on Friday. He was referring to the debate in the House of Lords on same-sex marriage. He added that there had been an "overwhelming change of cultural hinterland" in social attitudes. He's right. Gay marriage will become established and there will come a time when few of its current opponents (including Archbishop Welby) will be exercised by the issue. The same was true of civil partnerships and of decriminalising homosexuality. It was also true of legislation in 1882 to enable married women to own property independently — a reform that the purported defenders of marriage likewise denounced as contrary to the natural order. Most voters see this. The Church predominantly can't. Why does it so reliably lag social attitudes? Consider Archbishop Welby's predecessors. William Temple was influential in debates over the post-war welfare state. But his predecessor, Cosmo Lang, supported the disastrous foreign policies of Neville Chamberlain. Michael Ramsey forcefully opposed racism. But his predecessor, Geoffrey Fisher, foolishly remarked — in Africa — that "all men are not equal in the sight of God though they are equal in the love of God". Rowan Williams bizarrely declared that adoption of Sharia in some parts of Britain was unavoidable. The Church eventually acclimatises itself to intellectual discoveries, such as Darwinism, or the expansion of liberty, such as opening civic and military office to non-Anglicans in the 19th century. There are rare scholars who have drawn wisdom from theological reflection, such as the great Protestant ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr. But modern secular culture is wiser than the Church. Science and liberalism are critical, whereas religion aims to uncover the true meaning of sacred texts and revelations. Always looking backward, the Church is late in catching up. Oliver Kamm is a leader writer for The Times. This article is reproduced with the author's permission. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.
	Muslim TV station fined for allowing contributor to incite murder News \| Fri, 5th Jul 2013 A Muslim TV Channel which allowed its airwaves to be used by a hate preacher to incite the murder of those who "insult the Prophet Mohamed" has been fined £85,000 by the media regulator Ofcom. The company was also fined a further £20,000 for other breaches of the broadcasting rules. DM Digital, which is based in Manchester, broadcast a programme Mercy unto the Worlds, in October 2011, and another entitled POAF Conference, broadcast in November and December 2011. The first programme featured a live lecture by Abdul Qadir Jilani, a so-called Islamic scholar, which included material that Ofcom considered was "likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder". Mr Jilani, said in the offending programme: "The matter of insulting the prophet does not fall in the category of terrorism. Those who cannot kill such men have no faith. It is your duty, the duty of those who recite the holy verse, to kill those who insult Prophet Mohammed. Under the guidance from Islamic texts it is evident that if a Muslim apostatises, then it is not right to wait for the authorised courts; anyone may kill him. An apostate deserves to be killed and any man may kill him." A spokeserson for Ofcom said the regulator had decided that "this code breach was particularly serious ... and, taking account of all the circumstances, decided therefore that a financial penalty of £85,000 should be imposed on the licensee DM Digital." The other programme featured comments by Dr Liaqat Malik, DM Digital's chief executive, which breached Ofcom's views on political statements and impartiality, leading to a £20,000 penalty. Earlier this year Dr Malik said that he was dissatisfied with Ofcom's ruling because there were cultural differences that Ofcom does not understand. He said that the regulator's adjudicating committee should have members picked from the Muslim community. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "Inciting murder is against the law. Why aren't the police knocking on Mr Jilani's door? Why is he not under arrest? Surely he cannot be allowed to get away with such blatant call to kill innocent people? Other people have been sent to prison for far less than this."
	Public perceptions and reality - have we got it wrong? Opinion \| Thu, 11th Jul 2013 An Ipsos-Mori poll for the Royal Statistical Society tried to measure what people's perception of issues were as opposed to the reality (according to the official figures). On religion, the survey found that people vastly overestimated the number of Muslims living in Britain at 24%. According to the census, the actual number is nearer 5%. As far as Christians are concerned, people thought that 34% of the population was Christian, whereas the census showed the number at 59%. There was a vast disparity between public perceptions and reality in other issues. When asked how many girls under 16 had become pregnant in the past year, people guessed at 15%. In reality it is more like 0.6%. But let's not forget that the accuracy of the census figures on religion have been questioned many times, so we shouldn't take anything for granted. Other large-scale polls find the number of Christians to be much nearer the 34% that people estimated, and the number of Muslims has been underestimated by the census too. And, anyway, what does being a 'Christian' mean? A lot of people who haven't been near a church for decades and don't intend to go near one, still regard themselves as 'Christian'. And that includes people who say they're Christian and then say they don't believe in God or the resurrection or the virgin birth or miracles or anything else that would genuinely qualify them as anything but cultural Christians.
	Channel 4’s call to prayer during Ramadan is more of the same old, same old Opinion \| Tue, 9th Jul 2013 Channel 4 is airing the Muslim call to prayer during Ramadan every morning and also broadcasting a series of programmes about Ramadan. It says it is doing so as a deliberate act of "provocation" to challenge viewers who associate Islam with terrorism and extremism. Far from being provocative, however, it is just more of the same old, same old. Whilst people have innumerable characteristics that define them, Channel 4 is again promoting a portrayal of Muslims as one dimensional religious beings that always fasts and like to hear the call to prayers. What about all the Muslims (and ex-Muslims) who can't stand to hear the call to prayers? Or who don't fast during Ramadan? There is a movement of eating during Ramadan as a way of challenging laws that make it an offence to eat in public. Here's one example of people being arrested for "inciting public eating during Ramadan" but of course none of these will be shown on Channel 4. Rather than being provocative, Channel 4 is feeding into the narrative that all Muslims are religious and conservative and fast during Ramadan. Something Islamists insist upon thereby justifying their attacks on those who refuse to fast or transgress their vile norms. Religion is meant to be a private matter, lived in a myriad of ways. Often religion is not even an integral part of many people's lives but of course that's irrelevant for Channel 4. As an aside, the call to prayers makes the hairs on my neck stand up. It has always been background noise during executions and attacks on the public in Iran. Channel 4: want to do something really provocative? Show "Muslims" and ex-Muslims living everyday lives, eating, laughing, loving, opposing Sharia, leaving Islam, defending secularism and women's equality or gay rights and living without religion. Show them as 21st century human beings and citizens with countless characteristics like everyone else. Not just as Muslims and a certain type of Muslim at that. But of course that is too much to ask… As for me I will be eating extra this month. Maryam Namazie is an honorary associate of the National Secular Society and leader of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and the One Law for All campaign, she won the first NSS Secularist of the Year Prize in 2005. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.
	Catalonia plans to ban the burka News \| Tue, 9th Jul 2013 The Catalan Government has announced that it will control the wearing of burkas and other face-coverings such as helmets and masks in public spaces "for reasons of public safety". The move was announced on Wednesday by Ramon Espadaler, Interior Minister for Catalonia, which is an autonomous state. The Catalan daily La Vanguardia quoted Mr Espadaler as denying that it had anything to do with religious issues. "It is not a general prohibition," he said "That would lead us nowhere and we would be infringing on fundamental rights." He added: "We want to be sensitive" and urged a "careful, subtle and clear debate" to find a "consensus". This may be an attempt to get round a previous ruling by Spain's Supreme Court that local authorities do not have the jurisdiction to regulate fundamental human rights. The Supreme Court over ruled previous attempts to ban burkas in a number of municipalities. Espadaler referred to the previous legislative failure by saying that "the path taken by other town halls was not the right one but there is a problem here and we do not wish to look the other way". He pointed out that the new proposed law would also affect demonstrators and protesters who cover their faces in public.

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

NSS Speaks Out

The Times picked up our Thought for the Day story (last week's Newsline) and included a quote from Terry Sanderson (subscription) and was subsequently picked up by The Daily Telegraph

Keith Porteous Wood made two appearances on the BBC1 Television's Breakfast programme, talking about religious education in schools.

Terry Sanderson was on Three Counties Radio talking about Channel 4's "Call to Prayer" stunt.

The NSS was quoted in the story about the UN calling the Vatican to account over child abuse in The Guardian Daily Telegraph International Business Times BBC, Irish Independent Irish Times, Canadian Globe and Mail, News24, Jakarta Globe and many foreign language newspapers.

The story was also picked up by Reuters.

As a direct result of being alerted by the NSS this story was picked up even more widely around the world, albeit the NSS was not mentioned by name, for example by Agence France Press (the largest news agency in the world), Huffington Post and the BBC World Service.

Keith Porteous Wood was talking on the same topic on Sky News and Voice of Russia radio.

The NSS figured strongly in a Washington Post story about the Government handing over thousands of community schools to the Church of England.

Quotes of the Week

"In times of revolution we too in the Church of England must have a revolution. The cultural and political ground is changing. Anyone who listened to the Same Sex Marriage Bill second reading debate in the House of Lords could not fail to be struck by the overwhelming change of cultural hinterland. The opposition to the Bill was utterly overwhelmed. There was noticeable hostility to the view of the churches."
(Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, in speech to Chuch of England synod)

"The complicated relationship among religion, secularism and the state is perhaps the issue of the 21st century."
(Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, Washington Post)

Essay of the Week

Hate human rights? Try Dubai
(Grace Dent, Independent)

	Will the UN finally bring the Vatican to account for its child abuse crimes? Opinion \| Thu, 11th Jul 2013 As a United Nations Committee on children's rights confronts the Vatican on its abysmal record on clerical paedophilia and criminal cover-ups, Keith Porteous Wood describes his role in bringing the Holy See to account. Hardly a month passes without a further scandal emerging of child rape and other sexual violence by clerics acting under the auspices of the Catholic Church. In the first week of July (2013), as well as a scandal with the Vatican Bank that resulted in its top two executives being fired, there was the release of devastating court papers on the RC Diocese of Milwaukee in which countless boys in a Catholic school for the deaf were abused, presumably chosen because of their reduced capacity to communicate. An attorney for some of the victims alleges that there were more than 8,000 cases of abuse by more than 100 staff. A harrowing film Mea Maxima Culpa has been made about this. The diocese has declared itself bankrupt, limiting the funds available to victims of abuse. The Vatican, under its diplomatic nom de plume The Holy See, is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which incurs a long list of strict obligations. One of these is five-yearly reporting of the challenges encountered in conforming to the Convention. But the Vatican only filed its report, due in 1997, in 2011. I complained about the failure to file — under the kind aegis of IHEU — on the floor of the UN Human Rights Council in 2009, 2010 and 2011 (shortly before the eventual submission of the report, which I believe my intervention prompted). The Committee on the Rights of the Child examined the report and invited interested parties to make submissions, which we did, commenting on the many ways in which the Vatican fell short of its Convention obligations. On the basis of these submissions, the Committee invited a small number of witnesses to testify at a private session in Geneva. Two victims' organisations were represented: the largest one called SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) and the Survivors' Voice Europe (with NSS member Sue Cox), and myself representing Geoffrey Robertson QC (author of The Case of the Pope – essential reading), IHEU as well as the National Secular Society. With the benefit of the written and oral evidence, the Committee, for the first time, confronted the issue head-on with the Vatican. In their list of issues raised with the Vatican the Committee asked: "In the light of the recognition by the Holy See of sexual violence against children committed by members of the clergy, brothers and nuns in numerous countries around the world, and given the scale of the abuses" in respect of every case of abuse "committed by members of the clergy, brothers and nuns" (in summary): (a) Whether those accused were removed or not from contact with children (b) Whether reporting to secular authorities was mandatory (c) Whether children were supported when making accusations and whether they were silenced (d) What was the outcome in canon law trials and whether there was co-operation with authorities in the countries concerned (e) What assistance was given to victims (f) What preventative measures are in place Questions were also asked about the Magdalene Laundries run by nuns in Ireland until their closure in 1996, where inmates (some of whom were girls) were used as forced labour. In my opinion, having seen the evidence, none of these questions can honestly be answered in a way that will satisfy the Committee. And that presents the new Pope with a dilemma. His predecessors have flouted the Convention shamelessly while at the same time exploiting the authority that being a signatory brings to seek to force Catholic dogma on other countries, for example so-called "pro-life" positions. Pope Francis has already said that he will "act decisively" over clerical paedophiles, but doing so will take more than the slick PR we have seen so far; it is a Herculean task. More challenging even than tackling the huge scale and the worldwide spread of this abuse could be making the necessary complete change to the Vatican culture of all his predecessors. And his answers to these questions, and more importantly his actions, will reveal whether he has the willingness and the clout to root out the corruption. I'm convinced that he was appointed to do just this, and that his predecessor was fired because of his unwillingness to even try. The evidence of Benedict's complicity in cover-ups is clear and continues to mount up, and that was another reason he had to go. The world and regulatory authorities are running out of patience with the Vatican's harbouring of criminality and criminals, whether over money-laundering or child rape. Francis's biggest challenge, and his papacy, will be judged on his success in these areas. Our actions have generated worldwide publicity for this issue. I am well aware that most abuse occurs outside institutions, but that is not a reason to ignore it. Indeed religious institutions are prone to abuse because of the power wielded by those in authority and in some cases their inevitable pent up sexual frustration. We accept that neither Catholic nor Christian institutions have a monopoly on this, and indeed a Jewish issue has just hit the news. We also recognise that there has been a considerable amount of physical or psychological violence in such institutions which has scarred victims.
	Tribunal rules that ultra-Orthodox Jewish man who wouldn’t work on Shabbat is entitled to benefits News \| Mon, 8th Jul 2013 An ultra-Orthodox (Charedi) Jewish man who refused to work on Shabbat has won an appeal against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) after he was denied Jobseeker's Allowance for over six months. A tribunal ordered the DWP to pay Jacob Slinger from Manchester £1,500 of the benefits. It also called on other Jewish people similarly denied benefits to come forward. Judge David Hewitt said that a hearing of the DWP's social entitlement chamber, which adjudicates benefits disputes, had been wrong to deny Mr Slinger the £56.80 per week benefit. Mr Slinger, a 19 year old former student, left his course last year and applied for the benefit. But the Jobcentre in Prestwich refused his application on the basis that he had stipulated he would not work on Friday afternoons and Saturdays to observe Shabbat. This was deemed "not reasonable". Mr Slinger claimed that he and his family had been forced into poverty as a result of the ruling. "My grandmother used every penny of her savings to support me," he said. Regulations state that jobseekers must be available to work up for a minimum of 35 hours a week, which Mr Slinger had agreed to. In fact, the tribunal was told that he had made himself available for 53 hours a week. Mr Hewitt said: "Mr Slinger has demonstrated that, even within the restraints he has set himself, he has reasonable prospects of securing employment and he is both available for and actively seeking work. If my understanding is correct, their original decision is found to be wrong. If people have been turned down for these reasons, they should make an appeal to this tribunal." Commenting on the outcome, Jason Coppel QC, an expert in social security law, said he was not aware of such a decision being made by a tribunal before, and that it had implications for the government's new universal credit, and could affect Christians, Muslims and others, as well as Jews. A DWP spokesperson said: "We will look at this judgement carefully and consider if we need to make any changes to the guidance given to Jobcentre Plus staff." There could yet be a series of appeals about decision, thought to be the first of its kind.
	Christian B&B owners who refused gay couple a room lose their appeal News \| Tue, 9th Jul 2013 The Christian owner of a bed and breakfast who was found guilty of discrimination after she refused a double room to a gay couple has lost her latest appeal. She is now planning to take the issue to the Supreme Court. The Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson said in his ruling at the Court of Appeal today that in his opinion it was a matter of indirect rather than direct discrimination, which can be lawful if the policy is justified. But he was bound to follow a previous ruling that had found direct discrimination in the case. The ruling relates to a bed and breakfast establishment in Cookham, Berkshire run by Susanne Wilkinson, who says she was trying to uphold her beliefs about marriage when she turned away gay couple, Michael Black and John Morgan in 2010. The couple issued proceedings against Mrs Wilkinson and in October 2012 a county court ruled that her policy directly discriminates against gay couples. The court ordered her to pay £3,600 in damages. In looking at justification, the Court acknowledged that religious rights are of equal importance to sexual orientation rights. However, in this particular case, the Court said Mrs Wilkinson's policy would not be justified because she could convert her B&B to single bed accommodation without it having a fatal economic impact on her. Permission has been granted for Mrs Wilkinson to appeal, and her case could be joined with that of Peter and Hazelmary Bull, other hotel owners who similarly refused to accommodate a gay couple, so that the Supreme Court can hear both cases together. Mrs Wilkinson's case is being financed by The Christian Institute. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "These are important cases that could have wide-ranging consequences for the rights of gay people. If it is OK to cite religious conscience in order to deny them hotel rooms what other service provider might decide that they don't want to serve gay people? Shops? Restaurants? "It is humiliating and degrading to be treated in this way, and if Mrs Wilkinson and the Bulls don't want to serve gay people, they shouldn't be running a business that is open to the public."
	New evidence that churches are completely out of step with society News \| Fri, 5th Jul 2013 New research for the Westminster Faith Debates shows that the Church of England is not only wildly out of step with the country at large, but also with its own members. The polling — conducted by Yougov among over 4,000 people — covers issues such as abortion, attitudes to sex and what role women should have in the church. On the issue of abortion, the views of people with religious affiliations do not differ much from the population as a whole. The research shows that support for abortion rights is growing in both groups. The poll shows that 43% of people who identify with a religion are in favour of keeping or raising the current 24 week limit (compared with 46% of the general population), 30% would like to see it lowered (compared with 28%), and 9% support a ban (compared with 7%). The remainder of people say they 'don't know'. Even though the Roman Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always wrong and should be illegal, only 14% of Catholics in this country are in favour of a ban. Although a significant number of people believe that life begins at conception it doesn't indicate that they oppose abortion. 44% of people believe that human life begins at conception, 30% at some time during pregnancy, 17% when the baby is born and 8% don't know. Even among those who think life begins at conception, three quarters believe abortion is acceptable up to 12 weeks and half believe it should be allowed up to 20 weeks. Among the religious people surveyed, Catholics, Muslims and Baptists are the most hostile to abortion, but only about half would like to see the law changed. 14% of Catholics surveyed support a ban and 33% would like to see the 24 week limit lowered. 30% of Muslims surveyed support a ban and 16% would like to see the 24 week limit lowered. Those who say they rely on external religious sources for guidance, and whose religion offers an anti-abortion message, are, unsurprisingly, the most likely to be hostile to abortion. The survey finds that most people in Great Britain — including religious people — rely most on their own judgment or feelings or the advice of family and friends for guidance. Among the population as a whole, anti-abortion sentiment is declining and support for current abortion law is growing. Comparisons with earlier YouGov polls reveal that the percentage of the population who would like to see a ban on abortion has fallen from 12% in 2005 to 7% today. Of those who expressed a view, support for keeping (or even relaxing) the current 24 week limit has risen by about one-third to a clear majority (57%) today. On the issue of contraception — although the Catholic Church condemns the use of birth control, only 9% of Catholics in the survey said they would feel guilty about using it. When it comes to extra-marital sex, less than 60% of Catholics would feel guilty about it — the same proportion as Anglicans, and indeed the general population. The guiltiest are Baptists and Pentecostals — almost 90% of those surveyed say they would feel guilty about extra-marital sex. The least guilty are those of no religion — only half would feel guilty about extra-marital sex. Four times as many religious people (20%) say they would feel guilty about pre-marital sex as non-religious people (5%). More than twice as many religious people (33%) say they would feel guilty about using pornography for sexual stimulation as non-religious people (15%). Interestingly, there is little difference between nominal and practising Catholics (about 30% would feel guilty) about the use of porn, whereas many more practising Anglicans (55%) would feel guilty than nominal Anglicans (30%). On the issue of religion's treatment of women, there was overwhelming disapproval. Only 8% of the population express approval of the Church of England's current policies towards women — and that includes Anglicans. Age, gender, social class, and educational level do not make any appreciable difference to this proportion. The figure falls to 3% among those who don't affiliate with any religion. Only 11% of Anglican adherents (nominal Anglicans) support their Church's policies. More Muslims (26%) than Anglicans approve. Amongst actively practising Anglicans, only 16% express approval. Even the most devout and obedient of Anglicans (7% of the total), only a quarter express approval of the Church of England's current policies towards women. There is even more disapproval of the Catholic Church's policies. Only 6% of the population express approval of the Catholic Church's current policies towards women — and that includes Catholics. More Catholics than Anglicans approve of their Church's policies — 22% compared with 11%, but it is still a small proportion. Amongst practising Catholics that figure rises to 31%, and to about half of Catholics who are most respectful of Church teaching. The overwhelming majority of people, both religious and non-religious, think religions would be better off with more women leaders. Professor Linda Woodhead who has led this research commented: "These new findings show that the churches are seriously out of step not only with society but with their own members. In failing to allow women's leadership in the churches, church leaders are privileging the views of a tiny, disproportionately male, group of people over the views of the vast majority of people in their own churches and in the country as a whole." Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "This research is further confirmation of what has been very obvious for some time now — the churches are not only out of step with society, they are at odds with it. They do not even reflect the views of their own members. The question then becomes — why does the Government pay so much attention to them and give them so much influence? "More to the point, why are they being given such influence over our education system to perpetuate ideas that very few people support — in fact, that most people are appalled by?" Read the whole report here.
	Our secular society is wiser than the Church Opinion \| Wed, 10th Jul 2013 "There was noticeable hostility to the view of the Churches," the Archbishop of Canterbury told the General Synod on Friday. He was referring to the debate in the House of Lords on same-sex marriage. He added that there had been an "overwhelming change of cultural hinterland" in social attitudes. He's right. Gay marriage will become established and there will come a time when few of its current opponents (including Archbishop Welby) will be exercised by the issue. The same was true of civil partnerships and of decriminalising homosexuality. It was also true of legislation in 1882 to enable married women to own property independently — a reform that the purported defenders of marriage likewise denounced as contrary to the natural order. Most voters see this. The Church predominantly can't. Why does it so reliably lag social attitudes? Consider Archbishop Welby's predecessors. William Temple was influential in debates over the post-war welfare state. But his predecessor, Cosmo Lang, supported the disastrous foreign policies of Neville Chamberlain. Michael Ramsey forcefully opposed racism. But his predecessor, Geoffrey Fisher, foolishly remarked — in Africa — that "all men are not equal in the sight of God though they are equal in the love of God". Rowan Williams bizarrely declared that adoption of Sharia in some parts of Britain was unavoidable. The Church eventually acclimatises itself to intellectual discoveries, such as Darwinism, or the expansion of liberty, such as opening civic and military office to non-Anglicans in the 19th century. There are rare scholars who have drawn wisdom from theological reflection, such as the great Protestant ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr. But modern secular culture is wiser than the Church. Science and liberalism are critical, whereas religion aims to uncover the true meaning of sacred texts and revelations. Always looking backward, the Church is late in catching up. Oliver Kamm is a leader writer for The Times. This article is reproduced with the author's permission. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.
	Muslim TV station fined for allowing contributor to incite murder News \| Fri, 5th Jul 2013 A Muslim TV Channel which allowed its airwaves to be used by a hate preacher to incite the murder of those who "insult the Prophet Mohamed" has been fined £85,000 by the media regulator Ofcom. The company was also fined a further £20,000 for other breaches of the broadcasting rules. DM Digital, which is based in Manchester, broadcast a programme Mercy unto the Worlds, in October 2011, and another entitled POAF Conference, broadcast in November and December 2011. The first programme featured a live lecture by Abdul Qadir Jilani, a so-called Islamic scholar, which included material that Ofcom considered was "likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder". Mr Jilani, said in the offending programme: "The matter of insulting the prophet does not fall in the category of terrorism. Those who cannot kill such men have no faith. It is your duty, the duty of those who recite the holy verse, to kill those who insult Prophet Mohammed. Under the guidance from Islamic texts it is evident that if a Muslim apostatises, then it is not right to wait for the authorised courts; anyone may kill him. An apostate deserves to be killed and any man may kill him." A spokeserson for Ofcom said the regulator had decided that "this code breach was particularly serious ... and, taking account of all the circumstances, decided therefore that a financial penalty of £85,000 should be imposed on the licensee DM Digital." The other programme featured comments by Dr Liaqat Malik, DM Digital's chief executive, which breached Ofcom's views on political statements and impartiality, leading to a £20,000 penalty. Earlier this year Dr Malik said that he was dissatisfied with Ofcom's ruling because there were cultural differences that Ofcom does not understand. He said that the regulator's adjudicating committee should have members picked from the Muslim community. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "Inciting murder is against the law. Why aren't the police knocking on Mr Jilani's door? Why is he not under arrest? Surely he cannot be allowed to get away with such blatant call to kill innocent people? Other people have been sent to prison for far less than this."
	Public perceptions and reality - have we got it wrong? Opinion \| Thu, 11th Jul 2013 An Ipsos-Mori poll for the Royal Statistical Society tried to measure what people's perception of issues were as opposed to the reality (according to the official figures). On religion, the survey found that people vastly overestimated the number of Muslims living in Britain at 24%. According to the census, the actual number is nearer 5%. As far as Christians are concerned, people thought that 34% of the population was Christian, whereas the census showed the number at 59%. There was a vast disparity between public perceptions and reality in other issues. When asked how many girls under 16 had become pregnant in the past year, people guessed at 15%. In reality it is more like 0.6%. But let's not forget that the accuracy of the census figures on religion have been questioned many times, so we shouldn't take anything for granted. Other large-scale polls find the number of Christians to be much nearer the 34% that people estimated, and the number of Muslims has been underestimated by the census too. And, anyway, what does being a 'Christian' mean? A lot of people who haven't been near a church for decades and don't intend to go near one, still regard themselves as 'Christian'. And that includes people who say they're Christian and then say they don't believe in God or the resurrection or the virgin birth or miracles or anything else that would genuinely qualify them as anything but cultural Christians.
	Channel 4’s call to prayer during Ramadan is more of the same old, same old Opinion \| Tue, 9th Jul 2013 Channel 4 is airing the Muslim call to prayer during Ramadan every morning and also broadcasting a series of programmes about Ramadan. It says it is doing so as a deliberate act of "provocation" to challenge viewers who associate Islam with terrorism and extremism. Far from being provocative, however, it is just more of the same old, same old. Whilst people have innumerable characteristics that define them, Channel 4 is again promoting a portrayal of Muslims as one dimensional religious beings that always fasts and like to hear the call to prayers. What about all the Muslims (and ex-Muslims) who can't stand to hear the call to prayers? Or who don't fast during Ramadan? There is a movement of eating during Ramadan as a way of challenging laws that make it an offence to eat in public. Here's one example of people being arrested for "inciting public eating during Ramadan" but of course none of these will be shown on Channel 4. Rather than being provocative, Channel 4 is feeding into the narrative that all Muslims are religious and conservative and fast during Ramadan. Something Islamists insist upon thereby justifying their attacks on those who refuse to fast or transgress their vile norms. Religion is meant to be a private matter, lived in a myriad of ways. Often religion is not even an integral part of many people's lives but of course that's irrelevant for Channel 4. As an aside, the call to prayers makes the hairs on my neck stand up. It has always been background noise during executions and attacks on the public in Iran. Channel 4: want to do something really provocative? Show "Muslims" and ex-Muslims living everyday lives, eating, laughing, loving, opposing Sharia, leaving Islam, defending secularism and women's equality or gay rights and living without religion. Show them as 21st century human beings and citizens with countless characteristics like everyone else. Not just as Muslims and a certain type of Muslim at that. But of course that is too much to ask… As for me I will be eating extra this month. Maryam Namazie is an honorary associate of the National Secular Society and leader of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and the One Law for All campaign, she won the first NSS Secularist of the Year Prize in 2005. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.
	Catalonia plans to ban the burka News \| Tue, 9th Jul 2013 The Catalan Government has announced that it will control the wearing of burkas and other face-coverings such as helmets and masks in public spaces "for reasons of public safety". The move was announced on Wednesday by Ramon Espadaler, Interior Minister for Catalonia, which is an autonomous state. The Catalan daily La Vanguardia quoted Mr Espadaler as denying that it had anything to do with religious issues. "It is not a general prohibition," he said "That would lead us nowhere and we would be infringing on fundamental rights." He added: "We want to be sensitive" and urged a "careful, subtle and clear debate" to find a "consensus". This may be an attempt to get round a previous ruling by Spain's Supreme Court that local authorities do not have the jurisdiction to regulate fundamental human rights. The Supreme Court over ruled previous attempts to ban burkas in a number of municipalities. Espadaler referred to the previous legislative failure by saying that "the path taken by other town halls was not the right one but there is a problem here and we do not wish to look the other way". He pointed out that the new proposed law would also affect demonstrators and protesters who cover their faces in public.

Our use of cookies

Newsline 12 July 2013

News, Blogs & Opinion

Will the UN finally bring the Vatican to account for its child abuse crimes?

Tribunal rules that ultra-Orthodox Jewish man who wouldn’t work on Shabbat is entitled to benefits

Christian B&B owners who refused gay couple a room lose their appeal

New evidence that churches are completely out of step with society

Our secular society is wiser than the Church

Muslim TV station fined for allowing contributor to incite murder

Public perceptions and reality - have we got it wrong?

Channel 4’s call to prayer during Ramadan is more of the same old, same old

Catalonia plans to ban the burka

NSS Speaks Out

Quotes of the Week

Essay of the Week

Upcoming Events

Leics SitP - One Law For All

Freedom of Expression, Islam and Blasphemy talk

NSS fundraiser - Tribute to Marlene Dietrich

Newsline 12 July 2013

News, Blogs & Opinion

NSS Speaks Out

Quotes of the Week

Essay of the Week

Upcoming Events

Sign up for our newsletter