Please support the NSS today and join thousands of other people like you in standing up for a secular Britain.
Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)
News, Blogs & Opinion
France posts secular charter in all state schoolsNews | Mon, 9th Sep 2013 The French Education Minister Vincent Peillon has unveiled the controversial secularism charter which is to be displayed in a prominent position in every school to remind pupils and teachers of the country's secular, Republican principles. The Minister says the charter is designed to promote "absolute respect for freedom of conscience". The charter's 15 principles have been much discussed and have already been condemned as "an attack on Islam". On Sunday, Mr Peillon told the Journal du Dimanche newspaper that: "The first article of our constitution states that the Republic is indivisible, democratic, social and secular. The school must teach these values, explain their meanings and their history. Because if we do not teach them, we should not be surprised if they are misunderstood or even ignored," he said. The Minister rejected accusations that the charter was a veiled attack on Islam. For instance, Abdallah Zekri, president of the Observatory on Islamophobia told Le Parisien he felt "targeted" by the charter. "This charter was supposedly made to combat communitarianism... But honestly, I feel targeted because now when anyone talks about 'communitarianism,' they're really talking about Muslims," he said. Mr Peillon denied this, telling Journal du Dimanche: "Absolutely not! Secularism is not against any religion. It provides a protected and neutral space in which to give everyone, regardless of religion, regardless of their social or geographical origin, the means to choose and build a life." Others think the charter does not go far enough to defend France's strict separation of church and state, which is termed laïcité. Michèle Tabarot, a centre-right opposition UMP deputy said: "The reality is that in the last few years, the Left has singularly lacked courage in the difficult struggle to defend secularism. This decision is totally in keeping with the pussyfooting image of this government." Philippe Tournier, Secretary-General of France's union of headteachers, told Europe 1 radio he welcomed the secularism charter in principle, but worried about problems in implementing it. "The intentions are absolutely positive, but the essential thing still remains — putting into force what [the charter] affirms," he said. In April, Mr Peillon revealed his plans for school pupils to debate "secular morality" for one hour every week. "Teaching and sharing the values of the Republic is a responsibility for each school," Peillon said at the time. Earlier this year the High Council of Integration recommended that the ban on religious symbols in schools be extended to include universities. It said that there was increasing conflict over students wearing religious clothes, demanding prayer spaces and special menus in university canteens. There is no definitive English translation of the French schools charter yet but the key points are:
The French version, as it will appear in schools, can be read here. See also: The National Secular Society this week published its own position on attempts to legally ban the burka and niqab in the UK. | |
Birmingham college drops ban on face veilsNews | Tue, 10th Sep 2013 Birmingham Metropolitan College, which earlier this week issued a ban on all face coverings on college premises, has now modified the policy to permit the wearing of niqabs or Muslim face veils. The about-turn came after Muslim women at the college raised objections and a petition was started and signed by over nine thousand people. A protest had also been arranged for the weekend. The college has now issued a statement saying it has decided to modify its stance to allow individuals to wear "specific items of personal clothing to reflect their cultural values". The original policy said that students must remove all hoodies, hats, caps and veils while on the premises so that they were easily identifiable. A statement on the college's Facebook page reads:
Meanwhile, a Hackney woman who appeared in court on charges of intimidating a witness, refused to remove her niqab, causing a confrontation with the judge at Blackfriars Crown Court. Eventually the woman was allowed to identify herself to a female police officer and retain the niqab. But the judge warned her that this won't necessarily be the case when her trial begins next week. Judge Peter Murphy said: "It cannot be satisfactory that one judge may go one way and another judge will go another way. Is it not right that there must be a common approach?" The judge warned that in the absence of a clearer position, some faiths could be given a "degree of privilege". The judge will rule on Monday how the issue should be dealt with when the trial begins. See also: German Muslim girl must go to swimming lessons (even if it's in a burkini) | |
Controversial eruv given go-ahead by local authoritiesNews | Wed, 11th Sep 2013 Local councillors in Harrow and Hertsmere in Hertfordshire have approved plans to erect a Jewish aerial boundary spanning the two neighbouring boroughs. The application for the eruv, submitted on behalf of Bushey United Synagogue, has provoked anger from local residents who have complained of a lack of consultation between the orthodox Jewish community and wider Bushey population. The symbolic boundary, consisting of poles connected by wire to form 'gateways', will turn Bushey into an area where strict Sabbath rules are relaxed for orthodox Jews, such as carrying or transporting items like wheelchairs, pushchairs and handkerchiefs. The funding for the implementation and monitoring of an eruv will be covered by the United Synagogue. Local residents opposing the plans argued that the poles and attendant wires could have a detrimental impact on the environment and character of the conservation area. However, Hertsmere Council said there would be "no unacceptable adverse impact". Other objections concerning the promotion of social exclusion and the imposition of religion on the public space fell outside the realm of planning consideration. John Dowdle, Chair of Watford Area Humanists and a critic of the Bushey eruv, said: "An eruv enforces a religious identity on all others living within the religious boundary, whether they share those beliefs or not. I have serious concerns about the detrimental impact this could have on social cohesion. "In Israel, people driving cars on Shabbat (Saturday) are subjected to stone throwing by ultra-orthodox religionists. Are we opening the way for this kind of behaviour in Britain?" However, at a public meeting in response to a "considerable amount of anger in Bushey village", Daniel Blake, the Bushey Synagogue board member overseeing the eruv application rejected claims that the eruv will have a significant impact on the locality or create a "Jewish exclusion zone". He said "the Bushey Jewish community has contributed a great deal to the life of the area. We have sought to promote a model of integration, tolerance for others and community cohesion. Our application will benefit a significant number of people in the local Jewish community, without having any detrimental effect on the wider population or the visual amenity of our area." According to Mr Blake, the local orthodox community has already raised significant funds but needs to raise additional funds before going out to tender. Concern has also been expressed about the potential public liability insurance costs involved. The United Synagogue pays insurance but it is unclear whether the local council might be liable should the United Synagogue cease to pay it. Eruvin are a relatively new phenomenon in the Britain. The first was created in 2003 and created a religious boundary covering 6.5 square miles around parts of Hendon, Golders Green and Hampstead in North London. Additional eruvin have since been erected in in Edgware, Elstree/Borehamwood and Stanmore. There are also planned eruvin in Whitefield, Greater Manchester, and Woodside Park in London. Reform and secular Jews generally disapprove of eruvs, rejecting the concept of an eruv as a valid interpretation of Jewish law. Hertsmere Council's summary of recommendation to grant planning permission can be read here. | |
Can we please stop wasting money on these endless surveys that just tell us what we already know?Opinion | Thu, 12th Sep 2013 Professor Paul Weller of Derby University seems to have cornered the market in research into perceived discrimination against religious groups. He seems to bring out a new report on it every year — all saying basically the same thing. We have also had occasion to question his methodology in the past. All this is done at considerable taxpayers' expense. The latest is 'Religion and Belief: Discrimination and Equality in England and Wales. A Decade of Continuity and Change' The results are based on elaborate consultations around the country and basically boil down to the fact that complaints about unfair treatment on grounds of religion have declined since the Equality Act was brought in. Those conflicts that do occur are usually the result of the prejudice of individuals rather than because of workplace policies. As the report puts it: "the experience of unfair treatment is more often reported to be occasional than frequent." When asked, some religious groups still gripe that they are singled out for unfair treatment. Muslims, particularly, think they get a hard deal. Jews say that anti-Semitism is still present in this country (although they don't say which other "faith group" practises it most) and Pagans find it difficult to get people to take them seriously. And where religious groups have institutional power — such as in schools — non-believers feel at a distinct disadvantage. At the same time, Christians are fed up with Muslims getting more attention than they do. But it's all rather low-key and unalarming. Most of us recognise the situation from our day-to-day lives. We don't need Professor Weller spending all that public money to tell us that some religious people are annoyed that other people aren't interested in their beliefs. Professor Weller labels this "religion or belief naivety" and defines it as: "A lack of basic religion or belief literacy that sometimes leads to actions that can be seen as and/or result in unfair treatment. It may not have any apparent directly negative impact on the lives of individuals or groups other than (the effects of which should not itself be underestimated) perpetuating a status quo where not enough is known about these religions. "We have adopted the terminology of 'religion or belief naivety' in preference to that of 'religion or belief ignorance' because what is identified here is not a more settled state of 'ignorance' in relation to which some individuals/ organizations do not wish to be challenged or to change their attitudes or behaviour, or policies and practises. Rather, 'religion or belief naivety' can also encompass the effects that occur even where there is an intention to be inclusive. "Thus the key aspect of 'religion or belief naivety' is to be seen not in the intentions of those whose actions might be characterized in this way, but rather in the effects that this naivety can have on others. Some of these effects can be similar to those of 'religion or belief prejudice'." So, it seems, Professor Weller — a Baptist Minister for 13 years before his academic career — is concerned that not everybody is totally fascinated with and respectful of religious views. Some people are simply indifferent and don't want to spend valuable time being "re-educated" in a way that will force them to change their opinions. Personally, I'm not fascinated by Ramadan and don't particularly want to know anything about it. I don't want to know what Whitsuntide means, either, or why Sikhs have to wear a dagger. So long as they follow the law and don't impinge on the rights of others I'm happy for enthusiasts to believe whatever they want. But it seems some believers are annoyed when non-believing co-workers have the temerity to eat their packed lunch during the "holy month" or occasionally blurt out an expletive that they regard as "blasphemous". They want them to stop because it offends their religious sensibilities. But if someone in the office likes train spotting, and other people think its "geeky" (see the hatred that trainspotters have to endure here — please include them in your next report, Dr Weller), you wouldn't expect him to complain to the boss that his feelings had been hurt because others don't share his interest. Why should our religious colleagues be any different simply because we can't be bothered with their precious beliefs, either? It seems to me Professor Weller is making a mountain out of a molehill and simply encouraging religious people to look for offence where otherwise they might just shrug it off as part of life's rough and tumble. Discrimination, however, is different. I would join a strike to defend any colleague who was being disadvantaged because of their religion. If they were denied promotion, for instance, or faced the sack simply because of what they believed, I'd be on the front line with them. Professor Weller's report is also strangely out of date. Religious complaints that seek to gain preferential treatment rather than equality have been dealt a killer blow in Europe in the judgments on Ladele, Chaplin and the others. We hope that such self-seeking legal actions are now a thing of the past. The law is there to protect individuals from injustice, not to bring advantage to particular religious beliefs. Most religious people have come to terms with the fact that they are not special in the workplace, they only have the same rights as everyone else. Agitating to have every Friday or Saturday or Sunday off because of your religion, while your colleagues have to work on, is simply not fair. Employers should try to accommodate all reasonable requests from their workers, of course — whether it's for holidays, a change in hours to take in the school run or time off to go to prayers. But if it can't be done without adversely affecting the business, then most employees will accept that "no" is a reasonable answer. Religious people should accept it, too. Professor Weller's report is long, convoluted, strangely behind the times — and expensive. We must call time on any more of them. | |
Gibraltar yields to campaign for opt out from religious studies in schoolsNews | Tue, 10th Sep 2013 A campaign by secularists in Gibraltar to allow students to opt out of religious education appears to have succeeded. It is now possible for students to take an alternative GCSE to Religious Studies (RS). Whereas previously if students opted out of RS they were not able to take a replacement subject, now they can opt for General Studies instead. The campaign has been led by Dave Gibbins, secretary of the Secular Humanist Society of Gibraltar (SHSG), who was told earlier this year by the Department of Education that there was no prospect of the policy changing. But the department has done a u-turn, saying parents can write to their children's school stating that they wish to opt out of RS and opt into General Studies. In a statement, the SHSG said: "If your child is not religious or has no interest in the subject and wishes to do something else now is the time to act. The SHSG supports freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. We feel it is important for people to be aware that RE is not defined as a 'core subject' under the Education (National Curriculum) Regulations, 1991 as has been claimed, and opting out is a simple process." In response, the Gibraltar Government told the Gibraltar Chronicle that "each request from a person wishing to opt out of Religious Education (RE) will be looked at on a case-by-case basis". The Department of Education told the paper: "The DoE is dealing with this matter directly with those concerned. Its main concern is, and always has been, to afford the best educational provision possible therefore enabling every child to achieve their true potential. Furthermore, the decisions it takes are always firmly grounded on educational arguments." The Education (National Curriculum) Regulations 1991 provide that the basic curriculum shall include provisions for religious education for all registered pupils. It is not a core subject. | |
Yes, we can talk about thisOpinion | Tue, 3rd Sep 2013 London's National Theatre recently hosted a debate about freedom of speech, multiculturalism and Islam called Can we talk about this? The opening line was a question to the audience, "Are you morally superior to the Taliban?" Anne Marie Waters, who was present, wrote in a blog that "very few people in the audience raised their hand to say they were." This response, demonstrates a misconceived attempt to be seen as tolerant and 'multiculturalist'. People could not bring themselves to say their views are morally preferable to a group that, Waters points out, "denies women medical treatment, imprisons them in their homes, allows domestic violence, and executes people by stoning for having a private life or the audacity to not believe in God." They fear being labelled, racist, 'Islamophobic', or discriminating against religion. Rather, they adopt a stance that treats all moral views generated by culture or religion as equally valid ('cultural relativism'). They confuse the distinction between the right to think as you want, and the right to act as you want. It is generally disregarded that a global code of moral values has been established, and accepted by almost every nation in the world — the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). By acceding to this Declaration, over 190 nations have agreed to honour the principles of individual autonomy, equality, security, freedom of thought, belief, expression and association, subject to the norms of democratic government. In its statement of rights that apply, regardless of nationality, race, gender and social standing, the Declaration sets a morally accepted standard of behaviour for all individuals. It has no place for cultural relativism, which leads to tolerance of cruel and inhumane practice in the name of 'culture', as if culture is the single source of moral acceptability. Over 170 nations have signed the International Convention on Human Rights (ICCPR), turning the political rights set out in the UDHR into a binding agreement. While individuals may practice their internal, illiberal beliefs in private, governments have undertaken to ensure their recognition of the political rights of everyone else, even within the same family, church or any other organisation. The trouble is, not one of these nations fully accedes to their promise. Why were the UDHR and ICCPR adopted? Because it was globally agreed that the principles they enshrine are the most effective (albeit imperfect) means of promoting the well-being of humankind. They were considered superior to other moral and political principles, and therefore superior to cultural mores that did not work for the same ends. At the very least, this is what has been formally decreed by the nations of the world. So holding that moral and political practices that promote this end are superior to others is neither unduly discriminatory or racist, but invokes a globally accepted 'superior' standard of living. There is now a global inter-connectedness to the extent that indigenous people themselves often resort to the language of human rights to protect their culture from further unwanted encroachment. Cultural relativism is a flawed basis for acceptance of others' values, as acceptance is based solely on the expression of those values by others, rather than on the worth of the values themselves. If, for example, clerics justify (or condone) certain action, say, female 'circumcision' (which is in effect genital mutilation) because it is tradition, or simply decreed by some 'authority' as mandated or acceptable, this reasoning is not sufficient to establish a general moral value that cannot be criticised. However, if their reason is to prevent some harm to society in general, regardless of its religious beliefs, the argument goes to the content of the value espoused. We must be able to "address whatever reservations, doubts, and objections there are about our positions out there, in the real world, no matter what society or culture or religious tradition they come from". It is the effect of a value on society, not its source, that is the relevant consideration. Evidence is coming to light of many instances in Western countries (including Australia) that women and girls are subjected to abuse, through restrictions, demands and physical attacks including honour killing, female genital mutilation (FGM) and childhood or forced marriage. Authorities are aware of this, but are not forthright in criticising and dealing with this. Approaches range from 'sensitive treatment' to acceptance. FGM, for example is carried out on millions of women worldwide for cultural or religious reasons. Although it is proscribed in many countries, including developed nations, few prosecutions take place. FGM results in increased maternal and infant mortality and infection, extreme pain and psychological harm. It does not enhance the woman's childbearing capacity, her physical or mental well-being, or the communal good. All it does is satisfy patriarchal notions involving sexual repression, harming, rather than promoting human well-being overall, and blatantly breaching the victim's human rights. The practice can be legitimately questioned on the basis that its rejection is based on superior moral and political values. Recent publicity over FGM in Australia has resulted in a Government crackdown, despite awareness of the practice and its prohibition in the early 1990s. But, like other cultural practices that result in harm to women through denial of their moral and political rights, authorities are habitually loathe to confront the practices head-on, despite their illegality, very often because of 'cultural sensitivity' (i.e. the fear of being labelled not 'politically correct'). Compare the UK and France: "The laws which made FGM illegal were introduced in France and England at about the same time, in the mid-1980s. But whereas some 100 parents and practitioners of FGM have been convicted in France, there has never been a single prosecution in the UK". The French explain that their priority is the welfare of children. Humanists have a moral compass. It is enshrined in a globally accepted Declaration that, globally, governments have said they will follow. It is not arrogance or cultural imperialism to consider its ethical principles superior to other cultural beliefs, as the nations of the world have declared them as such. We must talk about this, pressure society to accept these principles, and demand that governments deliver on their promise. Meg Wallace is a writer and Human Rights activist based in Australia. This blog was originally published here, and was reproduced with the permission of the author. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS. | |
Moroccan Christian jailed for “shaking the faith of a Muslim”News | Thu, 12th Sep 2013 A Moroccan Christian man has been jailed for two-and-a-half years and fined for evangelising. Mohamed el Baldi, 34, from the town of Ain Aicha, near Fes, was ordered to pay 5000 dirhams (£377) for "shaking the faith of a Muslim", at a court hearing on September 3. He was arrested after his house was raided on August 28 and items linked to his faith such as his Bible were confiscated. Propagating Christianity is prohibited under Article 220 of the Moroccan Penal Code. The law states that it is unlawful to stop one or more persons from practising their religion by force, violence or threats. By law, the maximum punishment for this offence is three-to-six months' imprisonment and a fine of 200 to 500 dirhams. However, el Baldi has been punished much more strictly. El Baldi, who is understood to have converted to Christianity around seven years ago, admitted friendship with two American Christians, who provided him with Christian materials, and confirmed that he attended Christian meetings in the cities of Meknes and Rabat. During the court hearing, his mother was said to have been hysterical and to have asked Allah to exact revenge on whoever "tampered" with the mind of her son. Morocco is ranked 39th in the Open Doors International's World Watch List, which reports on countries where it is difficult to practice Christianity. In 2010, a number of foreign Christians were declared as "a danger" to the country and expelled. Of the 33 million population of Morocco, over 99% is Muslim. The rest is comprised predominantly of Christians and Jews. Source: World Watch Monitor | |
Fiji’s new constitution may be secular, but it still undermines human rights, says AmnestyNews | Mon, 9th Sep 2013 Fiji's new constitution — which was ratified on 6 September 2013 — may be secular but it "falls far short of international standards of human rights law," Amnesty International has said. The constitution was signed by President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau and embraces the principles of a secular state with these clauses: 4.— But Isabelle Arradon, Amnesty International's Deputy Asia Pacific Director said: "Contrary to the claims of Fiji's government over the last few months, the new constitution actually weakens human rights protections in the country. "The current text upholds decrees that severely restrict free speech, grants the state the power to detain people (potentially indefinitely) without charge or trial in times of emergency. It also gives state officials immunity for a wide range of acts, including crimes under international law such as torture. "The new constitution not only erodes basic human rights for the people of Fiji, but grants military, police and government officials absolute immunity for past, present and future human rights violations. This will only serve to allow the perpetrators of serious crimes to act with impunity," said Ms Arradon. Despite the revised constitution, Fiji will remain subject to draconian decrees implemented since the 2006 military coup. Amnesty International documented a number of human rights violations occurring under emergency regulations (which were in place from April 2009 to January 2011) in its 2009 report, Fiji: Paradise Lost. "The international community must not allow themselves to be misled by the government's claims. They should push the Fiji government to take genuine steps towards respecting and protecting human rights for all," said Isabelle Arradon. Source: Amnesty International |
Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)
NSS Speaks Out
Scottish spokesman Alistair McBay had this letter in the Scotsman "Schools are for teaching, not preaching"
Terry Sanderson was on BBC WM talking about the ban on head coverings in a Birmingham College that has sparked outrage among Muslim students.
The NSS was quoted in the Economist in a piece about the French secular charter in schools.
Quotes of the Week
"There is a fundamental battle about religion and politics within Islam which has vast consequences for our future security".
(Tony Blair in BBC interview)
Essays of the Week
Can there be a decent human civilisation without religion?
(Robin Ince, Huffington Post)
Why a secular charter would be good for Quebec
(David Rand, Globe & Mail)
Quebec can be perfectly secular without an offensive Charter
(Supriya Dwivedi, Globe & Mail)
Upcoming Events
Central London Humanists - Secular Europe Campaign March and Rally 2013
Sat, 14th Sep 2013
National Youth Theatre: Pope Joan
Sun, 15th Sep 2013
The Barrier (A Play)
Wed, 25th Sep 2013
International Apostasy Laws - A Talk by Nahla Mahmood
Fri, 27th Sep 2013
NSS fundraiser - Tribute to Marlene Dietrich
Fri, 4th Oct 2013
