Newsline 14 July 2017

Newsline 14 July 2017

It's hard to believe that in modern Britain we're seeing courtroom battles over whether gender segregation in Islamic schools is discriminatory or not. Meanwhile, parents in some areas are being forced to send their children to religious schools, despite not wanting faith-based education for their children, due to a shortage of suitable alternatives.

Faith schools are dragging us back to an age of inequality. Gender segregation, discriminatory admissions, mandatory worship and limitations on choice are all the product of religion's continued involvement in publicly funded education. That's why we remain steadfast in our commitment to ending the faith schools madness and bringing about a secular education system, where equality and freedom of conscience are prioritised above faith groups' desire to inculcate children into their religion. Why not make a donation today to support our work?

News, Blogs & Opinion

Scottish government plans to roll back religious influence over education

News | Thu, 13th Jul 2017

The Scottish government is planning to curtail the influence of religious leaders over state education.

Under SNP plans, responsibilities which councils currently exercise will be handed to head teachers or new "regional collaboratives". The Times has reported that there are no plans to hand religious figures roles on the new bodies.

Government sources said they would be made up of "experienced and talented educators".

Religious representatives currently enjoy a legal right to places on council education committees in Scotland. At least three places on each council are reserved for religious nominees, under legislation dating back to 1929 and beyond. In most parts of Scotland this includes at least one Catholic and one representative of the Church of Scotland.

But the plans will strip councils of their legal responsibilities for the quality of education and their control over aspects of staffing, budgets, improvements and curriculum content. They would retain control over catchment areas and school places but be left with a largely administrative role.

"If the new regional collaboratives remove some of the local authority role in relation to the curriculum, then the churches would lose influence – unless they are also represented at the regional level," said Lindsay Paterson, professor of educational policy at the University of Edinburgh.

Church-funded schools in Scotland date back to the 17th century. But since then the state has taken them over. And this month the Scottish Social Attitudes survey showed that 58% of Scots – a higher proportion than ever before – had no religion.

Earlier this year SNP MP Tommy Sheppard called for Scotland to move towards a "secular education system", arguing that secularists should "chip away" at religion's role in state schools.

And a recent petition called for the removal of the requirement on councils to maintain positions for religious figures. The petitioners argued that the church was being granted a privileged position and that the arrangement violated the spirit of equalities legislation.

But some church figures criticised the move. David Robertson, minister at St Peter's Free Church in Dundee, said religious representatives should be given places on the collaboratives.

"Secular humanists have taken over most of the non-denominational schools and are in the process of dismantling from within our traditional Christian system," he said.

Alistair McBay, NSS vice-president and spokesperson in Scotland, said: "The requirement to keep religious representatives on council education committees cannot be justified.

"Unfortunately some figures in the church are responding by playing the victim. But they have held unearned power in Scotland's schools for too long. In an increasingly irreligious country, it is high time to put our children's interests ahead of those of established religion."

Vetting in Scottish Catholic schools 'putting off non-Catholic teachers'

News | Tue, 11th Jul 2017

The leader of Scotland's biggest teachers' union has said fewer non-Catholics are teaching in the country's Catholic schools because teachers can be vetted according to their religious views.

This weekend Larry Flanagan, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, criticised the Catholic church's right to approve teachers' appointments. "We are not in favour of the current operation of approval by the Catholic church," he said.

And speaking to the Sunday Herald, Flanagan said a ruling which reaffirmed the Church's position had "absolutely" made the situation "worse". "There were probably more non-Catholics working in the Catholic sector before that (case) than after it," he said.

In 2006 David McNab, a teacher in Glasgow, was told he required the Catholic church's approval to apply for a promotion. He took the city council to a tribunal, won the case and received £2,000 in compensation.

But the tribunal ruled that the church could approve all teachers' appointments in denominational schools under the 1980 Education (Scotland) Act. The National Secular Society has argued that the provision, which allows church officials to consider appointees' "religious belief and character", is discriminatory.

In 2014 the European Commission dismissed an NSS complaint against the rule. The commission also decided to take no further action against the UK government over NSS claims that legislation relating to faith schools breached European employment law.

Last year Seamus Searson, general secretary of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, called for the Scottish policy to be reviewed. "We are concerned that teachers don't always know what is expected of them in a Catholic school," he said.

And in 2014 Anthony Finn, the former head of teaching watchdog the General Teaching Council for Scotland, said Catholic headteachers believed the approval policy was being implemented inconsistently.

He cited anecdotal evidence from teachers. One said she had been asked if she was "still living with her boyfriend". Another claimed a same-sex relationship counted against him. But other staff said they had not faced questions about their lifestyle.

Critics also say the rules and uncertainties put teachers off from applying to Catholic schools. Last year the Archbishop of Glasgow, Philip Tartaglia, called on Catholic teachers to "seek an appointment in a Catholic school" amid claims of a recruitment crisis.

Alistair McBay, NSS vice-president and spokesperson in Scotland, said: "Our schools should choose teachers who are best placed to educate our children, not those who jump through hoops to pass muster with the religious authorities.

"Larry Flanagan is correct to say the Catholic church's effective veto on appointments should be rescinded. And ultimately there should be no place for discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in state education."

Separate is not equal ­– not in this ‘faith’ school

Opinion | Tue, 11th Jul 2017

Turning a blind eye to discriminatory gender discrimination in Islamic schools would be disaster for future generations of British girls growing up in Muslim communities, argues Stephen Evans.

I was in court this week for Ofsted's appeal of a ruling that gender segregation in a state-funded Islamic state school is not discriminatory.

The publicly funded Al-Hijrah Islamic faith school in Birmingham was inspected by Ofsted last summer, following a visit from the former chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw in June.

Sir Michael was said to have expressed "firmly negative views about the practice of segregation" at the school during his visit and ordered an immediate inspection.

In addition to finding girls and boys completely segregated in what purported to be a 'mixed school', inspectors also found books in its library which "included derogatory comments about, and the incitement of violence towards, women".

Discussing the books' content in his ruling, the judge said: "one of the books states that a wife is not allowed to refuse sex to her husband. Another opines that women are commanded to obey their husbands and fulfil their domestic duties. Two books made clear that a husband may in certain circumstances beat his wife, provided that this is not done 'harshly'."

Some girls complained anonymously that gender segregation did not prepare them for social interaction and integration into the wider society.

Nevertheless, the judge determined that the segregation practised within the school did not result in "one sex being treated less favourably than the other."

Mr Justice Jay said Ofsted inspectors wrongly assumed that the gender segregation implied unequal treatment and said its inspection report was based on the erroneous view that the school had committed unlawful sex discrimination.

The law permits only the most limited differences of treatment between pupils based on gender. There is a specific exemption in the Equality Act 2010 that allows single sex schools to have sex or gender specific admissions policies. There is however no statutory sanction against enforced segregation on the same school premises, whether for religious or other reasons. As vesitages of Victorian era gender segregation in education faded away, perhaps nobody thought this would be an issue in modern Britain.

But after considering the facts of this particular case – not least the "very prominently" displayed books in the library ­– it's hard to understand how one can fail to see the way in which the separation of the sexes in this school indicated an inferior outlook on women that reinforced notions of inferiority.

Of course there will be limited circumstances where it is reasonable to separate girls and boys in educational settings. But context matters. And we cannot ignore the fact that under some interpretations and manifestations of Islam, Muslim women are certainly not treated as men's equals.

Defenders of segregation may well stress the educational advantages of segregating pupils. And it is true that some educationalists believe that girls and boys perform better in single sex environments.

But this is a school that had books in its library that condoned rape and violence against women. A school where inherently misogynistic 'modesty' codes are enforced on young girls, forcing female pupils to 'cover up'. A school that applies a regime of "complete segregation" for all lessons, breaks, school clubs and trips. A school in which "teaching and learning in all subjects is Islamised".

You may believe that the school is acting in the best educational interests of the female pupils, but forgive me if I just don't buy it.

Another person not buying it is human rights campaigner Maryam Namazie. As she puts it:

"Girls in Islamic schools are segregated not in order to enable them to flourish but because they are seen to be the source of fitnah and male arousal from puberty onwards. Which is why they must be veiled, segregated, and prevented from many activities that are essential to child development. The court would do well to remember that when it comes to children in particular, there is a duty of care to ensure that the girl child has access to a level playing field and is able to flourish – sometimes despite the wishes of parents and fundamentalists."

Others not buying it include women's rights campaigners Southall Black Sisters and the counter-extremism and human rights organisation, Inspire – led by Sara Khan, a British Muslim woman on a mission to empower Muslim women to challenge the inequalities facing them.

The two groups have intervened in the case to ensure the court considers what is at stake here – especially for minority women and girls.

In the context of this school, separate is not equal. We wouldn't dream of regarding racial or sexual orientation separation in the classroom as legitimate ­– we wouldn't even be having the conversation ­– let's not lower the bar for gender segregation in order to accommodate religious customs and practices.

As their intervention will make clear, "the growing practice of gender segregation in education is not a benign development. It has a social and political history that can be traced back to the Rushdie Affair when religious fundamentalists sensed an opportunity to seize education as a battleground and a site on which to expand their influence."

Perhaps just as troubling as the current ruling is Ofsted's refusal to argue in court that the reason for segregating in this way was that the school's religious ethos viewed girls as inferior. It is inconceivable from what Ofsted acknowledges having observed at the school that they cannot have realised this.

The interveners were denied the opportunity to make an oral statement in court, but thanks to the intervention, these arguments will now be considered as part of the appeal.

As the intervening groups have warned, "Ultra-conservative and fundamentalist gender norms are seeping into the everyday life of minority communities".

UK law must protect young girls from 'educators' who seek to treat them as second-class citizens, yet this case risks becoming a precedent for the segregators.

It's shameful that our education system allows and encourages the religious segregation of pupils in the first place. To allow such gender segregation within those faith schools would be even more egregious ­– and a disaster for future generations of British girls growing up in Muslim communities.

Sex education: schools’ religious ethos may ‘limit’ pupils’ knowledge of LGBT facts and contraception

News | Wed, 12th Jul 2017

More than 50 faith leaders have warned that schools' ability to teach relationships and sex education (RSE) through a faith ethos could undermine its accuracy and inclusivity.

In a letter in the Guardian, figures from churches and synagogues across the UK argued that schools must "actively promote" the acceptance of LGBT people and factual information about birth control within sex education.

Several educational experts – such as Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, who chairs the Accord Coalition for Inclusive Education – were among the signatories. Others included Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, the chair of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

They congratulated the government for ensuring that relationships and sex education will soon be taught in all schools in England. The Children and Social Work Act, which requires all secondary schools in England to teach RSE, became law in April. The Act also requires the education secretary to publish regulations and statutory guidance on RSE provision.

But the letter added that the requirement was "open-ended and undefined". RSE could therefore be "hijacked by those who wish to overlook topics such as accessing confidential sexual and reproductive healthcare services and contraception, as well as those who wish to limit pupils to what they consider to be religiously acceptable notions of gender and sexual orientation".

The National Secular Society is part of the Sex Education Forum and has long advocated religiously neutral age appropriate education about sex and relationships.

Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns director, said: "This is an important reminder that sex education should be based solely on a rational assessment of the interests of pupils and wider society. We have seen the harm, particularly for LGBT pupils, where a religious agenda is imposed on RSE.

"It's good to see civil society leaders – religious or otherwise – standing up for children's rights, and against those who seek to impose their theology in the classroom."

The letter urged the government to ensure its guidance requires schools "to actively promote the acceptance of LGBT people and provide, for pupils of sufficient maturity, factual information about contraception and abortion". It said the "paramount" concerns should be to ensure RSE is inclusive and pupils are well-informed.

Photo credit: © Shairyah Khan, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licence.

The greater the religious fervency, the greater the homophobia

Opinion | Fri, 7th Jul 2017

On Pride weekend, NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood highlights the interconnectedness between the fight for secularism and equality for LGBTQ people.

Homosexuality, or at least homosexual activity, especially by men, has been a long-standing subject of extreme opprobrium by religious "authorities". The first state-sanctioned death penalty for male same-sex intercourse was reportedly around 500 BCE - with the adoption by Persian Jews of the "Holiness Code" of Leviticus.

In the 15th Century, Pope Nicholas V enabled the papal Inquisition to persecute men who practised sodomy.

According to Law, Religion and Homosexuality "the regulation of sodomy by the medieval ecclesiastical courts [in England] can be seen as enforcing a moral intolerance rooted in Christianity". (Until the mid 19th century such courts had jurisdiction over everyone, not just clergy as now). In 1553, as Henry VIII broke off with Rome, 'buggery' became a criminal offence punishable by hanging. This was largely in an endeavor to wrest power from these courts.

The fervor of Christian opprobrium can be gauged from the phrase Peccatum illud horribile, inter Christianos non nominandum (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians).

The Catholic Church's total opposition to homosexuality continues despite the headline grabbing but vacuous "who am I to judge?" papal comments. It still officially describes both gay people and homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered". Having said that, there seems in some countries at least (and even in the Vatican itself) to be a widespread disregard for Vatican pronouncements. So maybe that hostility is rather less than might be imagined, perhaps also because – ironically – so many priests are gay. According to one report, it is a third in the US.

There is little doubt that such attitudes promulgated by the churches and repeated in their schools have been a major factor in fanning homophobia in the populace. Broadly speaking, the greater the religious fervency, the more homophobia there is; in the UK that certainly applies to Northern Ireland.

Worldwide, there are 76 countries where homosexual acts remain illegal, 14 (mainly Muslim) where they are a capital offence; and in around five of these executions are carried out.

In the UK, partial decriminalisation of homosexuality for England and Wales was enacted in 1967, but it took around a further fifteen years for this to be extended to Scotland and finally to Northern Ireland.

Some may be surprised that the 1967 decriminalisation was supported by the then Archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops who voted, but in many ways the Church of England then was quite liberal. Who could have predicted that, nearly fifty years on, the bishops would have turned out in force to vote en bloc against same sex civil marriage, especially as public opinion (even among Christians) had become hugely more liberal in the meantime? What a contrast to all Muslims in the German Parliament voting for same sex marriage.

This is further evidence if any were needed of the Church's bishops being 'the most orthodox since WWII', as the current Primate was keen to brag to his international, and very orthodox, colleagues, not realising one of them would leak it. I believe that this growing orthodoxy has been strategically planned by the evangelicals, caring nothing that it takes the Church keen on claiming to be a national church in the opposite direction from the populace and many of its congregants.

This orthodoxy may make Dr Welby fractionally less unpopular in the developing world, much of which sickeningly homophobic.

Several experts on Africa have told me that American evangelical money is poured into Nigeria to bolster anti-gay religious teaching and influence. In 2013, Nigeria even introduced a Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act. Human Rights Watch said "The law has led to an increase in extortion and violence against LGBT people and imposed restrictions on non-governmental organizations providing essential services to LGBT people in Nigeria." Mind you, they are not the first Christians to do so; the first law against same-sex marriage was promulgated by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, in 342 CE.

But the Church of England is playing a dangerous game and the tables are turning somewhat. After centuries of the Church persecuting gay people at every turn, disputes over LGBTQ related issues could fatally split the Anglican Communion, and certainly the Archbishop of Canterbury's increasingly nominal presidency of it. But even greater damage may await at home.

The Church hierarchy's attitude to same sex marriage is unsustainable. The United Reformed Church, and the Scottish Episcopal (Anglican) Church accept same-sex marriage as does its US equivalent. Several other UK churches are contemplating it as are numerous other Anglican churches worldwide.

As a secularist, I support the right of the Church to dictate its own doctrine without state interference. But that does not bar me from saying such policies cause needless misery, nor to express the opinion that as both congregants and public opinion become ever more liberal on gay issues, the hierarchy becomes ever more isolated, as the recent report of Church in turmoil at Synod demonstrated. Their opposition clearly isn't boosting much-need attendance especially among the all-important young. I would not be the first to suggest that the same-sex marriage battles could combine with child abuse and the dispute over women bishops to create a perfect storm causing a three dimensional schism.

For all these reasons I have thought for decades that the fight for secularism and equality for gay people are interconnected, and I still do. But when I was much younger I had thought that the fight for secularism would be won before that for gay equality. I was wrong. Why?

While the UK population has become hugely more secular, religious forces have become more powerful. The need to take notice of growing and assertive forms of Islam, partly because of security concerns, has in its wake reinvigorated Christian leaders' ambitions. Minorities have segued from being identified by their countries of origin to being united around their religion (and sometimes segregated on religious lines), attend single-faith religious schools and are now represented by their religious leaders, not all of whom subscribe to so-called British values. And then there is the procession of religious PMs, nearly all of whom have been keen to give religion a leg up at every turn – but I must admit have generally been supportive of the advancement of gay rights.

Largely because gay people have courageously come out, the population's innate humanity has warmed to them and then discarded the gratuitous cruelty of previous generations.

Nevertheless, rather similar to the Church hierarchy's growing dilemma on same-sex marriage, the chasm between our religion-centred public institutions and the growing secularity of the population must eventually become unbridgeable.

The challenge for all of us is to mobilise that steadily secularising population, non-religious and religious alike, and persuade them of the benefits to us all of a more cohesive and equal society that only secularism can deliver.

Bradlaugh lecture to mark end of NSS’s anniversary celebrations

News | Fri, 14th Jul 2017

A lecture at Manchester Art Gallery will pay tribute to the National Secular Society's founding president Charles Bradlaugh on 9 September.

Professor Bryan Niblett, author of the definitive biography of Bradlaugh Dare to Stand Alone, will deliver the lecture. His talk will be based on his highly acclaimed book. The lecture and reception will mark the end of the NSS's 150th anniversary celebrations.

It will coincide with the re-hanging of a major portrait of Bradlaugh by the English painter Walter Sickert. Attendees will be able to view the painting for the first time since the NSS's Manchester branch gifted it to the gallery in 1911. Guests will also hear NSS historian Bob Forder deliver 'a very brief history of the NSS'.

Charles Bradlaugh was a leading 19th century atheist and radical. He also championed reformist legislation and the interests of the people of India. He campaigned to end the monarchy and allow women access to birth control.

He was elected to parliament as a Liberal MP in 1880 but effectively barred from taking his seat until 1886 because of his stance on swearing allegiance to God. He struck a major blow for free thought when he was finally allowed to take his seat. In 1888 Bradlaugh was able to secure an Oaths Act which extended the right to affirm to atheists and anyone else who objects to swearing.

Professor Niblett's biography has drawn great praise. Independent reviewer Edward Pearce called it "excellent and totally readable". In History Today Edward Royle wrote: "Bradlaugh has at last found justice and, one hopes, a more secure place in the history of mainstream Victorian Britain".

Current NSS president, Terry Sanderson, commented: "This promises to be a fitting finale to the National Secular Society's 150 anniversary celebrations. For those interested in the early freethought movement, our speakers are a goldmine. The restoration of Sickert's magnificent portrait of Bradlaugh will also help to ensure that one of the most effective and principled politicians of the 19th century is not forgotten."

The event will run from 2:00pm until 5:00pm. It will be free to NSS members. £5 for Non-members. Those wishing to attend can register for the event now.

European court backs Belgium’s ban on face veils

News | Tue, 11th Jul 2017

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Belgium's ban on wearing face veils in public does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court ruled today that the restriction was justified because it was an attempt to protect "the rights and freedoms of others" which "sought to guarantee the conditions of living together". It said the ban could be considered "proportionate" to those aims and "necessary in a democratic society".

In 2011 Belgium banned the wearing of clothing which obscures the wearer's identity in public places. This included partial or total face veils.

Two women who wanted to wear the niqab in public argued that the law had violated their rights under articles eight (right to respect for private and family life), nine (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The niqab, a burka most often worn by Muslim women, covers the whole body except the eyes.

Belgian national Samia Belcacemi said she had removed her veil in response to the law, fearing she might be fined or jailed. Moroccan national Yamina Oussar said she had chosen to stay at home, curtailing her social life.

The court said the ban was "controversial and undeniably carried risks in terms of the promotion of tolerance in society". But it ruled that no violation of the claimants' rights had taken place.

It said the law's drafting history showed that the authorities were attempting to promote public safety, gender equality and "a certain conception of living together". It said the state authorities were "better placed than an international court to assess the local needs and context".

And it said the punishment for breaking the law could be viewed as proportionate to the aims it was trying to promote. Those who defy the ban can be fined; repeat offenders can be imprisoned. But the law is classified as a "hybrid" in Belgian law, meaning that municipal authorities can take alternative measures to uphold it.

The court also came to a similar judgement today over a bylaw banning face veils in the Belgian municipalities of Pepinster, Dison and Verviers.

In 2011 France became the first European country to issue a national ban on full-face veils in public. Since then Bulgaria and parts of the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Spain and Italy have followed suit.

Earlier this year the German parliament supported a draft law banning women working in the civil service, judiciary and military from wearing full-face Islamic veils. Last month Norway's government proposed a burka ban in schools and universities. And the case comes as several French cities consider whether to introduce bans on the burkini, a full-body swimsuit, over the summer.

In 2014 the ECHR rejected arguments that the French ban on veils breached religious freedom and human rights. And in March the European Court of Justice ruled that workplace bans on the wearing of "any political, philosophical or religious sign", such as headscarves, did not necessarily constitute direct discrimination. But it added that such bans must be based on internal company rules requiring all employees to "dress neutrally".

The National Secular Society has serious concerns about the wearing of the burka and agrees that in some contexts it should be prohibited. However the NSS does not support legal attempts to ban it in all public places.

Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns director, said: "No woman should be forced to hide behind a burka. It is vital for civil society to expose the deeply intolerant view of women which the garment often symbolises. And freedom of religion is not absolute.

"But bans on clothing in public places are an unconvincing response to misogynistic attitudes.

"It should be stressed that the court's judgement is not a blank cheque to ban the burka across Europe. States that pass laws against face coverings are required to show that they have a legitimate aim in doing so and that they have handled the issue proportionately."

Malaysian state votes to allow public caning for breaching sharia code

News | Thu, 13th Jul 2017

Legislators in Malaysia's northeastern state of Kelantan have voted to allow the public caning of those who break strict Islamic laws.

On Wednesday the state's legislature approved amendments to its sharia code which will allow the punishment to take place.

If the changes are confirmed, "illicit" sexual acts, homosexuality and alcohol consumption will be punishable by public caning. Religious enforcement officers will be allowed to handcuff suspects and use videos as evidence in court.

The amendments require the consent of the Kelantan sultan before being implemented. Malaysia's deputy prime minister, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, said they would "only" affect Muslims in the state.

Malaysia operates a dual-track legal system. Islamic courts handle issues concerning religion and the family. Criminal cases are dealt with under federal law, where caning in prison is a potential punishment.

In Kelantan the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), an orthodox Muslim party which governs the state, has been trying to toughen the punishments which can be given out under sharia. On Wednesday the state's deputy chief minister Mohd Amar Nik Abdullah said the changes were "in accordance with religious requirements".

PAS, which is traditionally influential in rural parts of Malaysia, has been in power in Kelantan for over 20 years. In 2015 it led efforts to mandate punishments for breaching religious laws, including amputations for theft and stoning to death for adultery.

The state legislature passed a law but it has not been implemented because Malaysia's federal constitution forbids it. Critics said this week's amendments were also against the constitution.

In recent years intolerant attitudes have gained ground in Malaysia. The prime minister, Najib Razak, has promised to pass legislation championed by PAS which would "empower" sharia courts. In May the country's top secular court rejected a woman's appeal to have her conversion from Islam to Christianity legally recognised.

The National Secular Society does not recognise the legitimacy of sharia 'law', as it fundamentally undermines the rule of law. The NSS is a founder member of the One Law for All campaign.

NSS Speaks Out

NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood was quoted in the Wire, on the Government's bias against legislation to prevent caste discrimination. Our vice-president, and spokesperson for Scotland, Alistair McBay had a letter in the Herald regarding the recent Orange Order marches and Buckfast tonic wine.