Newsline 18 August 2017

In Charlottesville and Barcelona this week, as in London before them, Islamist and nationalist far right movements have aped each other's tactics and rhetoric.

In the aftermath of Saturday's events in Virginia, many business and infrastructure advisers distanced themselves from President Trump. But even as he equivocated in his denunciation of neo-Nazis, his evangelical religious advisers stood by him. It is therefore timely that in one of our essays of the week, Rob Boston looks at the similarities between America's religious right and its resurgent far right.

Five days later more crowds of innocent people were mown down in a jihadist attack in Catalonia. European societies are left asking habitual questions about multiculturalism and the role of Islam. But meanwhile the continued fallout from the Newcastle grooming scandal has taken a familiar turn, as politicians and the media turned their focus on columns in The Sun newspaper.

We must continue to challenge those who make sweeping generalisations about Muslims, and using language such as 'The Muslim Problem' is worthy of criticism. But we must also create an environment in which people are able to speak freely about the great challenges that our societies face, and our policy makers appear intent on addressing them rather than closing down debate about them.

This makes it all the more important to repeal laws which prohibit 'blasphemy'. When states try to silence criticism of religion, they create a terrible weapon to use against dissenters and minorities. Our lead story highlights the extent of this problem worldwide. Elsewhere, the plight of the Rohingya is a reminder that Muslims are among the minorities that suffer when religion merges with nationalism.

Closer to home, religious groups continue to undermine LGBT+ rights. A court has ruled that there is no need for same-sex marriages to be legally recognised in Northern Ireland. And a Liverpool church has defended its barbaric gay 'conversion therapy' on the grounds that "nobody has dropped dead".

The campaign against faith schools in Scotland goes on, as the opening of a joint campus between a Catholic school and a Jewish one is erroneously hailed as a great leap forward for inclusive education.

Our executive director commends the recommendation of a royal commission in Australia, which said the clergy should face the same rules on reporting child abuse as the rest of us. And in another piece for Politics.co.uk, he explains why the government seems so reluctant to introduce a caste discrimination law.

Newsline will probably be taking a break for a couple of weeks, but we aim to be back on September 8^th with an improved format.

Please support the NSS today and join thousands of other people like you in standing up for a secular Britain.

News, Blogs & Opinion

	Blasphemy laws “astonishingly widespread” - report News \| Mon, 14th Aug 2017 Dozens of countries from all corners of the globe retain laws which punish blasphemy and most of them punish the 'crime' severely, according a report from the US government. The paper, from the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, was entitled Respecting Rights? Measuring the World's Blasphemy Laws. Its authors said blasphemy laws were "astonishingly widespread". They found laws restricting freedom of expression on religious issues in 71 countries. Two of those featured – Denmark and Malta – have recently repealed their laws. But elsewhere the report appeared to have underestimated the scale of the problem, as it did not include Northern Ireland or Scotland. The National Secular Society played a vital part in their repeal in England and Wales in 2008. Every country featured was criticised for "deviating from some international human rights law principles". Most of the laws deviated from "a significant number" of those principles. Around a quarter of the laws found were in the Middle East and North Africa; another quarter were from Asia and the Pacific. More than a fifth were in Europe, with 15.5% coming from sub-Saharan Africa and 11.2% from the Americas. An overwhelming majority of the laws were found in national penal codes. The report said punishments ranged from "moderately to grossly disproportionate". Fifty-nine states sanctioned a prison sentence for 'blasphemers'; some imposed other sentences such as lashings and forced labour. The laws were ranked according to a series of indicators, including how far their language threatened freedom of expression; how severe the penalty was; and how far they were used to discriminate against minority groups. These showed how far they deviated from international human rights principles. The authors said the laws often put particular strain on "the forum, either public or private, in which a person can express or display his/her opinions or beliefs and control written or spoken words". They also said the legislation was often vaguely worded, with only one-third of the criminal laws specifying that intent must be part of the 'crime'. The six countries with the most severe blasphemy laws were all Muslim-majority countries. Iran and Pakistan were given the worst rankings, mainly because both countries' laws explicitly allow the death penalty for insulting Muhammad. They were followed by Yemen, Somalia, Qatar and Egypt. In some cases, the rankings underestimated the reality of the impact of a country's blasphemy laws. For example, in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Eritrea, there was no sanction specified in written law. This meant none of those countries were given points on the indicator for the severity of the punishment. But their laws mean the punishment can be prescribed in other laws or open to judicial interpretation. This has particularly harsh consequences in Saudi Arabia, where judges often impose long prison terms or public floggings for 'blasphemers'. In April a man arrested on a blasphemy charge was sentenced to death for apostasy. The report also said: "In states where there are unresolved conflicts between two or more religious groups, accusations of blasphemy can be used as a tool to strengthen one group's power over another". And in countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, 'blasphemers' are often punished through extrajudicial actions and mob 'justice'. Italy, which came seventh on the list, had the most severe blasphemy laws in Europe. In 2015 an Italian court upheld a fine imposed on an artist who had publicly depicted a sexual act involving the former Pope Benedict and one of his clerical advisers. The judgment said religion could be legitimately criticised by qualified people with relevant experience. Most European states which have blasphemy laws on the books rarely invoke them. Ireland, which introduced a blasphemy law in 2009 and has not convicted anyone for the offence since, was the lowest-ranked country. But Mairead McGuinness, an Irish politician who works as vice-president of the European Parliament, has said blasphemy laws weaken European politicians' ability to protect 'blasphemers' abroad. "The local authorities frequently accuse us of hypocrisy," she said. The authors also said the report raised criticisms of established state religions. The five worst-ranked countries all had state religions, and countries with official state religions tended to get higher scores than those without them. Responding to the report Chris Sloggett, the NSS's communications officer, said: "Blasphemy should never be illegal. Religious ideas should be as open to challenge, insult or ridicule as any other. "This report – which, in places, understates the damage done by blasphemy laws – is an important reminder of the pointless punishment which many face for speaking their minds. It highlights the work that needs to be done around the world to protect free expression. "And it should nudge countries that retain these laws to realise they are not harmless, as they undermine international standards on free expression and solidarity with free thinkers." The image above this article is taken from the US Commission on International Religious Freedom's report.
	NSS calls for ban on ‘gay conversion therapies’ after church starvation News \| Thu, 17th Aug 2017 The National Secular Society has called on the government to consider banning so-called gay conversion 'therapies' after a Liverpool church encouraged LGBT+ people to starve themselves for long periods. Medical experts linked to the NSS said it was "widely recognised" that conversion efforts contributed to the stigma against homosexuality and there was "no evidence" that they worked. Josh Parry, a reporter for the Liverpool Echo, visited a branch of the Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries in Anfield with a hidden microphone. The church has more than 50 branches across the UK. On its website it says its members are "deeply committed to absolute holiness as the greatest spiritual germicide and as a pre-condition for heaven". It also claims: "Our tested and proven DIY approach to prayer warfare continues to provoke dumbfounding miracles and attract divine intervention in situations which hitherto had proven intractable." Parry posed as a member of the public who was questioning his sexuality. At a private counselling session the church's assistant pastor, who called himself 'Brother Michael', told him that being gay is biologically wrong and a "deceit of Satan". He added that people come out as gay to gain celebrity status. He said prayer 'therapy' would allow the reporter to "marry and have children". He invited Parry to take part in a three-day residential programme, where he would not eat until the third day. Participants would be expected to pray for three hours at a time and be encouraged not to leave the church. Dr Antony Lempert, chair of the NSS-linked Secular Medical Forum, said observing such a regime was a danger to participants' health. "Dehydration for such a prolonged period of time is dangerous and can result in acute kidney injury, leading to hospitalisation even in healthy individuals." The reporter also took part in a prayer session, which 'Brother Michael' said would make his "deliverance" more effective. The pastor repeatedly shouted phrases such as "kill it with fire, die in the fire". Members of the congregation were seen crying, shaking and sweating. Some appeared to be speaking in tongues. Around 20 adults and children as young as six months old were in attendance. The assistant pastor added that up to 100 people, including as many as 60 children, attended the event at weekends. 'Brother Michael' said the 'therapy' would be most effective if Parry "humbled his soul" by forgoing food and water for 24 hours before these sessions. The reporter was not offered a physical or medical examination before being offered this advice. Parry said the experience made him feel "a strange mixture of disgust and pity". But Dr Desmond Sanusi, the church's senior pastor, said similar programmes had operated for 20 years and "nobody has dropped dead". He added that the activities of 'Brother Michael' were "out of my guidance" and claimed that the church "does not discriminate" against LGBT+ people. He denied that the three-day programme existed: "I am the pastor of this church. It is not a three-day fasting." The NSS has campaigned to raise awareness of the damage done by so-called 'conversion therapy'. A spokesperson said: "Even religious organisations with otherwise dubious records on LGBT+ rights oppose this extreme practice. Whether or not it comes with a glossing of pseudo-medicine, it is harmful. Healthcare bodies must strengthen existing guidance and this needs to be backed up by legislation. The government should also deny entry to those visiting the UK specifically to promote or practise these 'therapies'." Attempts to convert LGBT+ people are unsupported by medical opinion. Dr Lempert said: "Sexual orientation conversion efforts, invariably in one direction, are widely recognised in the medical community as being a contributor to the disgraceful stigma against homosexuality. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of GPs are both opposed to such efforts. "The people promoting them invariably do so because of their own religious beliefs, prejudice against homosexuality and wishful thinking that they can actually change people's sexual orientation. There is no evidence for their effectiveness and these efforts cause torment to many who have turned to them in desperation. "There are significantly increased levels of mental distress and illness in the LGBTQI community. Those who are desperate enough to try to change their own sexual orientation often do so as a result of being victims of stigma and prejudice within a religious community hostile to homosexuality. What needs to change is not their sexual orientation but the bigotry and prejudice of the religious community which itself is one of the main causes of mental distress. "Any organisation offering counselling to members of the public has a responsibility to ensure that those who act in their name do so ethically and safely. Failure to do so can cause significant harm to vulnerable people." In a consensus statement the UK Council on Psychotherapy (UKCP) says: "There is no good evidence this works and we believe it has the potential to cause harm. Often these approaches are based on religious interpretations about sexuality rather than on a researched and informed understanding of sexual orientation." In the UK, all major counselling and psychotherapy bodies, as well as the NHS in England and Scotland, have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) pledging not to support 'conversion therapy' and acknowledging the harm it does. Despite this, in 2015 research by LGBT+ rights charity Stonewall found 10% of health and social care staff across Britain have "witnessed colleagues express the dangerous belief that someone can be 'cured' of being lesbian, gay or bisexual", a figure that rises to 22% in London. The current MoU does not cover transgender or intersex people, many of whom are victims of the practice. While the UK government has spoken out against 'conversion therapy' and supported the consensus statement and MoU, they have rejected calls to ban the practice. In 2016 Malta became the first European country to introduce a ban, despite significant opposition from the Catholic Church. Earlier this year the US Supreme Court upheld California's right to ban the therapy for under-18s and there are movements to ban the practice in several states. Oregon, New Jersey, Vermont, Illinois and the District of Colombia also ban licenced mental health providers from the practice. But according to a report by ABC News a 'cottage industry' is widespread, and Vice President Pence is a long term supporter of state funded 'conversion therapy'. In 2017, a gay man in China became the first in the country to successfully sue a psychiatric hospital over forced conversion therapy.
	Same-sex marriages need not be recognised in NI, court rules News \| Fri, 18th Aug 2017 The High Court has ruled that same-sex marriages which are entered into in England do not need to be recognised in Northern Ireland. A man who got married in London in 2014 had claimed the marriage should have legal force in Northern Ireland, where he and his spouse now live. The judge rejected his case that this was a breach of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Same-sex marriage has been held not to be a right under the Convention in a recent judgment, nor is it a right in any UN convention. Furthermore, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 marriage falls under the competence of the NI Executive and Assembly. Hence same-sex marriage by virtue of the provisions of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 does not extend to Northern Ireland. That Act specifically provides that a same sex marriage is treated for the purposes of the law of Northern Ireland as a civil partnership. The judge however recognised the "frustration" of those seeking recognition, particularly as a majority of Assembly members in Stormont have voted in favour of same-sex marriage but this has been vetoed under the power sharing agreement. He concluded: "The judgment which I have to reach is not based on social policy but on the law." A second case about two same-sex couples with civil partnerships registered into in Northern Ireland (the first two couples ever to do so) who argued their inability to get married violated their entitlements to marriage and a family life was similarly dismissed. One of the women said she was "devastated", adding: "For us, this is a personal matter. We have families and our children are being treated differently because of today's result." John O'Doherty, the director of The Rainbow Project, referred to the NI Assembly not functioning: "It is, therefore, the responsibility of Theresa May's government to make the necessary amendments to the marriage legislation to make it applicable in Northern Ireland." Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the National Secular Society, commented: "While Mrs May is in favour of extending same-sex marriage to the province, she is unlikely in the extreme to do so, as this would undermine the confidence and supply agreement she reached with the anti same-sex marriage DUP and thereby deprive the government of votes it needs to remain in office."
	The confessional shouldn’t shield child abuse from reporting Opinion \| Wed, 16th Aug 2017 The Australian abuse commission is right not to exempt the confessional from reporting obligations, and its rigour should provide a model to reverse the backsliding already all too clear in the UK, argues Keith Porteous Wood. Should priests be legally bound to report instances of child abuse that come to their attention through the confessional? The (Australian) Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse certainly thinks so. It has just issued a major report of its investigations in which 4,444 perpetrators of abuse in Catholic settings were identified. One of its numerous recommendations was to impose "a positive obligation on third parties [to report] ... in relation to child sexual abuse". The Commission has been clear that this obligation should include reporting any admission by a perpetrator, even when it is made to a priest in the confessional: "There [should] be no exemption, excuse, protection or privilege from the offence granted to clergy for failing to report information disclosed in connection with a religious confession." It has carefully considered the freedom to manifest religion and concluded — correctly in my opinion — that the obligation does not infringe this. It states, as is recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that freely practising religion is not an absolute right and can be reasonably abridged to protect the "fundamental rights and freedoms of others". And at least where there is a significant problem of abuse, the United Nations thinks reporting should be mandatory, without exception. The Committee for the Rights of the Child recommended in 2014 to the Holy See, where of all places it would have made clear if it wanted to except the confessional, that it "44(e) Establish clear rules, mechanisms and procedures for the mandatory reporting of all suspected cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation to law enforcement authorities". [Emphasis added.] After the revelations of the massive level of clerical child abuse in Ireland, the UN made calls for such legislation there and, eventually, this was enacted a few years ago - without a "confessional" exemption. Predictably the Catholic hierarchy in Australia has opposed the idea with its customary self-serving belligerence. However, if the obligation to report abuse applies to everyone, then it must surely apply to what a perpetrator says in confession. In a recent article, subtitled Breaking the Seal of Confession Could Pit Church Against State the president of the Australian Catholic Bishop's conference is quoted from 2012: "priests will guard the sanctity of the seal of confession with their very lives. ... They would certainly undergo imprisonment rather than violate it". And even in Ireland there was no confessional opt out; objections there were clothed in pragmatic terms "obliging priests to pass on information received from penitents in the confessional, is a fiction, since no such information will be forthcoming." Another objection that the Church uses is that the breaking the seal of confession violates 'canon law'. But there can only be one legitimate law that decides this issue and that is the democratically-determined human rights-compliant law of the land. Senior Australian clerics telling us they are keen, or at least prepared, to go to prison to protect child abusers is not something that will impress most citizens. Most will recognise it as an attempt by the Catholic Church to promote its own law as being superior to, and beyond the reach of, the law of the land that everyone else must obey. The Catholic hierarchy claims that breaking the confidence of confession will "make things worse". But just how much worse can it get than 4,444 clerical perpetrators that have been identified? And how many clerics must have known – whether or not via the confessional – about those thousands of perpetrators and felt justified in keeping silent, while the children continued to be abused? One of the top lawyers fighting clerical abuse of minors and vulnerable adults, Richard Scorer, referred in his book Betrayed about RC abuse in England to the case of Father James Robinson in Birmingham. This case casts doubt on claims that confession, when not accompanied by mandatory reporting, would lead to perpetrators handing themselves in. There were three complaints about Robinson made by a boy to three separate priests in confessionals in 1972-3. Obviously these were not acted on. It was not until 2010 that Robinson was finally jailed for 21 years after decades of horrific abuse. Reports suggest that the imprisoned Gerald Francis Ridsdale abused hundreds of children in Australia, starting from his ordination in 1961. Even he agreed with the Commission "from my experience and what I've done and the damage that I've done" that the confessor should tell the police if someone had confessed to a crime. The Commission has seen a similar pattern and said "We are satisfied that confession is a forum where ... clergy have disclosed their abusive behaviour in order to deal with their own guilt. We heard evidence that perpetrators who confessed to sexually abusing children went on to reoffend and seek forgiveness again." It concluded "that the importance of protecting children from child sexual abuse means that there should be no exemption from the failure to report offence for clergy in relation to information disclosed in or in connection with a religious confession." And it looks like the Commission will prevail. As an Australian commentator has just observed "Ireland passed the Children First Act in 2015, which required mandatory reporting from clergy, and if the experience there is anything to go by, Australia may need to ready itself to punish Catholic priests who refuse to break the seal of confession." Some in the Church have long expected this move and Juliette Hughes-Norwood, a Catholic from Melbourne wants the law to change. "Have decency — put children first, put human dignity first not your position." Australia's Commission was large, lawyer-led and established the huge number of perpetrators. It has come out with well-considered hard-hitting recommendations including those for legislative change. The equivalent UK body, The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse is on a much smaller scale and after much controversy is now on its fourth chair, a social worker. We need this inquiry that still has several years yet to run to be hard-hitting and ruthlessly forensic in its examinations. We need individuals and institutions to be made accountable and thorough concrete recommendations. It must not be a wrist-slapping exercise. Attempts have been made at Westminster to introduce legislation covering institutional abuse, but so far unsuccessfully. The Government is not enthusiastic – surely not because it might unleash even more cases? The Anglican Church originally supported tough legislation. Whether it still does is unclear. I hope that the impressively professional Australian report and well-thought-out recommendations will make the Government pull its socks up and put some much-needed backbone into our own work in this area. Mandate Now is an organisation pressing for effective legislation for "regulated activities" (broadly, for abuse in institutions). It is understandably concerned that the Government will quietly ditch mandatory reporting for a face-saving "duty to act", which will be unenforceable and therefore ineffective. You may wish to consider supporting Mandate Now. Above all, we all need to take every opportunity to press the Government into introduce robust mandatory reporting on regulated activities. Image of the confessional is by Bruno Bord (link) Licence: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) Readers may also appreciate this supportive story in the Guardian, written by a woman who told her priest about being sexually abused when she was 16.
	Joint faith school campus brings segregation under one roof News \| Fri, 18th Aug 2017 A new £17m campus which houses Catholic and Jewish faith schools together has opened in East Renfrewshire. St Clare's Primary, a Catholic school, will share its premises with the Jewish Calderwood Lodge and a non-denominational nursery class. The campus in Newton Mearns, near Glasgow, will include features such as a shared central amphitheatre, outdoor obstacle trails and two sports pitches. East Renfrewshire Council welcomed the news of the joint campus. "By sharing ideas and knowledge, all our pupils at this new joint campus will enjoy an enriched learning environment," said Paul O'Kane, the council's convener of education. But Alistair McBay, NSS vice-president and spokesperson for Scotland, said the new campus "clears a remarkably low bar". "This is not an example of inclusive education. The children involved are still being defined and segregated according to their parents' religion. And faith groups are still responsible for running their education. "Bringing two faith schools together under one roof does not create a cohesive society. In many countries organised religion plays no special role in schooling. Scotland should follow their lead." Religious groups have previously obstructed plans to introduce joint campuses in Scotland by demanding segregation. In 2004 the Catholic Church withdrew support for plans to create seven shared sites for Catholic and non-denominational schools in North Lanarkshire. Its representatives said the campuses would require separate entrances, staff rooms, toilets, gyms and nurseries for 'Catholic children'. There are also concerns that segregated education has fostered sectarianism in Scotland. Last month the leader of Scotland's biggest teachers' union said non-Catholics were being deterred from applying to Catholic schools because teachers could be vetted according to their religious views. This was despite the fact that the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that a record number of Scots – almost six in ten – had no religion. Religious groups have a long history of involvement in Scottish education. In 1872 the state took responsibility for schools away from churches and some other private groups. But in return churches were granted a statutory role on education issues. Its representatives still enjoy a legal right to places on council education committees. In 2014 a report suggested church representatives held the balance of power on 19 local authority education committees. Meanwhile one MSP said churches had "exerted undue influence" over decisions on joint campus proposals in these committees. But there are signs that faith-based education may soon be rolled back in Scotland. Last month The Times reported that the Scottish government was planning to hand over councils' responsibilities to new bodies which will have no automatic religious seats on them. Mr McBay said church leaders had "held unearned power in Scotland's schools for too long" and added: "It is high time to put our children's interests ahead of those of established religion."
	Caught between Hindu and Buddhist nationalists: Rohingya Muslims face expulsion News \| Thu, 17th Aug 2017 The Indian government plans to deport 40,000 Rohingya Muslims living in the country to Myanmar after labelling them all illegal immigrants. Last week Kiren Rijiju, the junior interior minister, told parliament that the central government had directed state authorities to identify and deport illegal immigrants. He said this included Rohingya, who face persecution in Buddhist-majority Myanmar. And in an interview with Reuters, Rijiju said the measures would even apply to the 16,500 Rohingya who have been given identity cards by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The UNHCR says the cards help to "prevent harassment, arbitrary arrests, detention and deportation". "We can't stop them from registering," Rijiju said. "But we are not [a] signatory to the accord on refugees. As far as we are concerned they are all illegal immigrants. They have no basis to live here. Anybody who is [an] illegal migrant will be deported." The Indian government says it is in talks with Bangladesh and Myanmar about the plan for deportation. "There's a procedure, there is a rule of law," Rijiju said in his interview. "We can't throw them out just like that. We can't dump them in the Bay of Bengal." Roughly one million Rohingya live in Myanmar, a Buddhist-majority country. But in recent months tens of thousands have fled amid an intensifying military crackdown in the western state of Rakhine. Some have fled to Bangladesh, India and south-east Asia. The UN has said the Rohingya are being collectively punished for militant attacks, although the Burmese government disputes this. In February the UN's special adviser said the violence could amount to crimes against humanity. There is increasing concern over rising Hindu nationalism in India. In recent years there have been attacks on churches and mosques; Hindu groups have engaged in forced conversions; and there have been crackdowns on the sale and possession of beef. Last month Ram Nath Kovind, a low-caste politician backed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's conservative religious faction, was elected president. In March, Modi appointed Yogi Adityanath as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh – a state of 200m people, around a fifth of whom are Muslim. Adityanath founded the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a religious activist organisation which critics say is a Hindu supremacist group. In one incident a decade ago, court documents allege that Adityanath's followers went on a rampage, burning Muslim-owned properties and an Islamic mausoleum. The National Secular Society said the Indian authorities' stance was "deeply troubling". A spokesperson said: "Merging religion and nationalism will always create 'others' to be excluded and discriminated against." Image from Kiren Rijiju's official Facebook page, Rijiju with the Prime Minister.

Read Elsewhere

Caste discrimination: Why won't the government legislate?

By Keith Porteous Wood, NSS executive director, for Politics.co.uk

The government is in hock to the increasingly powerful Hindu right. But those campaigning for a law on caste discrimination are in no mood to quit.

Quote of the Week

"We are too wishy-washy."

Philip Tartaglia, the Archbishop of Glasgow, says Scottish Catholics have gone too far in adapting to a secular world.

Essays of the Week

The alt-right and the religious right stand in opposition to America's tradition of religious freedom

By Rob Boston, for Wall of Separation

After last weekend's appalling events in Charlottesville, Rob Boston highlights the ideological fusion between the alt-right and the religious right.

The hijab is not for children. It was right to drop these distasteful images

By Amina Lone, for The Guardian

Complaints over a traffic safety campaign which showed a four-year-old in a headscarf were justified.

Upcoming Events

7th International Congress of Freethought

Thu, 21st Sep 2017

We are currently running our 2020 fundraising campaign, to expand our campaigning resources and meet the demand for our work. Please click here to learn more.

NSS Speaks Out

Council member and abuse lawyer Richard Scorer criticised the culture of secrecy that has facilitated child abuse among Benedictine monks in The Observer. And NSS vice-president Alistair McBay had a letter published in The Scotsman. It highlighted the Catholic Bishop of Motherwell's endorsement of a group which claims to help young LGBT+ people avoid same-sex attraction.

	Blasphemy laws “astonishingly widespread” - report News \| Mon, 14th Aug 2017 Dozens of countries from all corners of the globe retain laws which punish blasphemy and most of them punish the 'crime' severely, according a report from the US government. The paper, from the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, was entitled Respecting Rights? Measuring the World's Blasphemy Laws. Its authors said blasphemy laws were "astonishingly widespread". They found laws restricting freedom of expression on religious issues in 71 countries. Two of those featured – Denmark and Malta – have recently repealed their laws. But elsewhere the report appeared to have underestimated the scale of the problem, as it did not include Northern Ireland or Scotland. The National Secular Society played a vital part in their repeal in England and Wales in 2008. Every country featured was criticised for "deviating from some international human rights law principles". Most of the laws deviated from "a significant number" of those principles. Around a quarter of the laws found were in the Middle East and North Africa; another quarter were from Asia and the Pacific. More than a fifth were in Europe, with 15.5% coming from sub-Saharan Africa and 11.2% from the Americas. An overwhelming majority of the laws were found in national penal codes. The report said punishments ranged from "moderately to grossly disproportionate". Fifty-nine states sanctioned a prison sentence for 'blasphemers'; some imposed other sentences such as lashings and forced labour. The laws were ranked according to a series of indicators, including how far their language threatened freedom of expression; how severe the penalty was; and how far they were used to discriminate against minority groups. These showed how far they deviated from international human rights principles. The authors said the laws often put particular strain on "the forum, either public or private, in which a person can express or display his/her opinions or beliefs and control written or spoken words". They also said the legislation was often vaguely worded, with only one-third of the criminal laws specifying that intent must be part of the 'crime'. The six countries with the most severe blasphemy laws were all Muslim-majority countries. Iran and Pakistan were given the worst rankings, mainly because both countries' laws explicitly allow the death penalty for insulting Muhammad. They were followed by Yemen, Somalia, Qatar and Egypt. In some cases, the rankings underestimated the reality of the impact of a country's blasphemy laws. For example, in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Eritrea, there was no sanction specified in written law. This meant none of those countries were given points on the indicator for the severity of the punishment. But their laws mean the punishment can be prescribed in other laws or open to judicial interpretation. This has particularly harsh consequences in Saudi Arabia, where judges often impose long prison terms or public floggings for 'blasphemers'. In April a man arrested on a blasphemy charge was sentenced to death for apostasy. The report also said: "In states where there are unresolved conflicts between two or more religious groups, accusations of blasphemy can be used as a tool to strengthen one group's power over another". And in countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, 'blasphemers' are often punished through extrajudicial actions and mob 'justice'. Italy, which came seventh on the list, had the most severe blasphemy laws in Europe. In 2015 an Italian court upheld a fine imposed on an artist who had publicly depicted a sexual act involving the former Pope Benedict and one of his clerical advisers. The judgment said religion could be legitimately criticised by qualified people with relevant experience. Most European states which have blasphemy laws on the books rarely invoke them. Ireland, which introduced a blasphemy law in 2009 and has not convicted anyone for the offence since, was the lowest-ranked country. But Mairead McGuinness, an Irish politician who works as vice-president of the European Parliament, has said blasphemy laws weaken European politicians' ability to protect 'blasphemers' abroad. "The local authorities frequently accuse us of hypocrisy," she said. The authors also said the report raised criticisms of established state religions. The five worst-ranked countries all had state religions, and countries with official state religions tended to get higher scores than those without them. Responding to the report Chris Sloggett, the NSS's communications officer, said: "Blasphemy should never be illegal. Religious ideas should be as open to challenge, insult or ridicule as any other. "This report – which, in places, understates the damage done by blasphemy laws – is an important reminder of the pointless punishment which many face for speaking their minds. It highlights the work that needs to be done around the world to protect free expression. "And it should nudge countries that retain these laws to realise they are not harmless, as they undermine international standards on free expression and solidarity with free thinkers." The image above this article is taken from the US Commission on International Religious Freedom's report.
	NSS calls for ban on ‘gay conversion therapies’ after church starvation News \| Thu, 17th Aug 2017 The National Secular Society has called on the government to consider banning so-called gay conversion 'therapies' after a Liverpool church encouraged LGBT+ people to starve themselves for long periods. Medical experts linked to the NSS said it was "widely recognised" that conversion efforts contributed to the stigma against homosexuality and there was "no evidence" that they worked. Josh Parry, a reporter for the Liverpool Echo, visited a branch of the Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries in Anfield with a hidden microphone. The church has more than 50 branches across the UK. On its website it says its members are "deeply committed to absolute holiness as the greatest spiritual germicide and as a pre-condition for heaven". It also claims: "Our tested and proven DIY approach to prayer warfare continues to provoke dumbfounding miracles and attract divine intervention in situations which hitherto had proven intractable." Parry posed as a member of the public who was questioning his sexuality. At a private counselling session the church's assistant pastor, who called himself 'Brother Michael', told him that being gay is biologically wrong and a "deceit of Satan". He added that people come out as gay to gain celebrity status. He said prayer 'therapy' would allow the reporter to "marry and have children". He invited Parry to take part in a three-day residential programme, where he would not eat until the third day. Participants would be expected to pray for three hours at a time and be encouraged not to leave the church. Dr Antony Lempert, chair of the NSS-linked Secular Medical Forum, said observing such a regime was a danger to participants' health. "Dehydration for such a prolonged period of time is dangerous and can result in acute kidney injury, leading to hospitalisation even in healthy individuals." The reporter also took part in a prayer session, which 'Brother Michael' said would make his "deliverance" more effective. The pastor repeatedly shouted phrases such as "kill it with fire, die in the fire". Members of the congregation were seen crying, shaking and sweating. Some appeared to be speaking in tongues. Around 20 adults and children as young as six months old were in attendance. The assistant pastor added that up to 100 people, including as many as 60 children, attended the event at weekends. 'Brother Michael' said the 'therapy' would be most effective if Parry "humbled his soul" by forgoing food and water for 24 hours before these sessions. The reporter was not offered a physical or medical examination before being offered this advice. Parry said the experience made him feel "a strange mixture of disgust and pity". But Dr Desmond Sanusi, the church's senior pastor, said similar programmes had operated for 20 years and "nobody has dropped dead". He added that the activities of 'Brother Michael' were "out of my guidance" and claimed that the church "does not discriminate" against LGBT+ people. He denied that the three-day programme existed: "I am the pastor of this church. It is not a three-day fasting." The NSS has campaigned to raise awareness of the damage done by so-called 'conversion therapy'. A spokesperson said: "Even religious organisations with otherwise dubious records on LGBT+ rights oppose this extreme practice. Whether or not it comes with a glossing of pseudo-medicine, it is harmful. Healthcare bodies must strengthen existing guidance and this needs to be backed up by legislation. The government should also deny entry to those visiting the UK specifically to promote or practise these 'therapies'." Attempts to convert LGBT+ people are unsupported by medical opinion. Dr Lempert said: "Sexual orientation conversion efforts, invariably in one direction, are widely recognised in the medical community as being a contributor to the disgraceful stigma against homosexuality. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of GPs are both opposed to such efforts. "The people promoting them invariably do so because of their own religious beliefs, prejudice against homosexuality and wishful thinking that they can actually change people's sexual orientation. There is no evidence for their effectiveness and these efforts cause torment to many who have turned to them in desperation. "There are significantly increased levels of mental distress and illness in the LGBTQI community. Those who are desperate enough to try to change their own sexual orientation often do so as a result of being victims of stigma and prejudice within a religious community hostile to homosexuality. What needs to change is not their sexual orientation but the bigotry and prejudice of the religious community which itself is one of the main causes of mental distress. "Any organisation offering counselling to members of the public has a responsibility to ensure that those who act in their name do so ethically and safely. Failure to do so can cause significant harm to vulnerable people." In a consensus statement the UK Council on Psychotherapy (UKCP) says: "There is no good evidence this works and we believe it has the potential to cause harm. Often these approaches are based on religious interpretations about sexuality rather than on a researched and informed understanding of sexual orientation." In the UK, all major counselling and psychotherapy bodies, as well as the NHS in England and Scotland, have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) pledging not to support 'conversion therapy' and acknowledging the harm it does. Despite this, in 2015 research by LGBT+ rights charity Stonewall found 10% of health and social care staff across Britain have "witnessed colleagues express the dangerous belief that someone can be 'cured' of being lesbian, gay or bisexual", a figure that rises to 22% in London. The current MoU does not cover transgender or intersex people, many of whom are victims of the practice. While the UK government has spoken out against 'conversion therapy' and supported the consensus statement and MoU, they have rejected calls to ban the practice. In 2016 Malta became the first European country to introduce a ban, despite significant opposition from the Catholic Church. Earlier this year the US Supreme Court upheld California's right to ban the therapy for under-18s and there are movements to ban the practice in several states. Oregon, New Jersey, Vermont, Illinois and the District of Colombia also ban licenced mental health providers from the practice. But according to a report by ABC News a 'cottage industry' is widespread, and Vice President Pence is a long term supporter of state funded 'conversion therapy'. In 2017, a gay man in China became the first in the country to successfully sue a psychiatric hospital over forced conversion therapy.
	Same-sex marriages need not be recognised in NI, court rules News \| Fri, 18th Aug 2017 The High Court has ruled that same-sex marriages which are entered into in England do not need to be recognised in Northern Ireland. A man who got married in London in 2014 had claimed the marriage should have legal force in Northern Ireland, where he and his spouse now live. The judge rejected his case that this was a breach of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Same-sex marriage has been held not to be a right under the Convention in a recent judgment, nor is it a right in any UN convention. Furthermore, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 marriage falls under the competence of the NI Executive and Assembly. Hence same-sex marriage by virtue of the provisions of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 does not extend to Northern Ireland. That Act specifically provides that a same sex marriage is treated for the purposes of the law of Northern Ireland as a civil partnership. The judge however recognised the "frustration" of those seeking recognition, particularly as a majority of Assembly members in Stormont have voted in favour of same-sex marriage but this has been vetoed under the power sharing agreement. He concluded: "The judgment which I have to reach is not based on social policy but on the law." A second case about two same-sex couples with civil partnerships registered into in Northern Ireland (the first two couples ever to do so) who argued their inability to get married violated their entitlements to marriage and a family life was similarly dismissed. One of the women said she was "devastated", adding: "For us, this is a personal matter. We have families and our children are being treated differently because of today's result." John O'Doherty, the director of The Rainbow Project, referred to the NI Assembly not functioning: "It is, therefore, the responsibility of Theresa May's government to make the necessary amendments to the marriage legislation to make it applicable in Northern Ireland." Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the National Secular Society, commented: "While Mrs May is in favour of extending same-sex marriage to the province, she is unlikely in the extreme to do so, as this would undermine the confidence and supply agreement she reached with the anti same-sex marriage DUP and thereby deprive the government of votes it needs to remain in office."
	The confessional shouldn’t shield child abuse from reporting Opinion \| Wed, 16th Aug 2017 The Australian abuse commission is right not to exempt the confessional from reporting obligations, and its rigour should provide a model to reverse the backsliding already all too clear in the UK, argues Keith Porteous Wood. Should priests be legally bound to report instances of child abuse that come to their attention through the confessional? The (Australian) Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse certainly thinks so. It has just issued a major report of its investigations in which 4,444 perpetrators of abuse in Catholic settings were identified. One of its numerous recommendations was to impose "a positive obligation on third parties [to report] ... in relation to child sexual abuse". The Commission has been clear that this obligation should include reporting any admission by a perpetrator, even when it is made to a priest in the confessional: "There [should] be no exemption, excuse, protection or privilege from the offence granted to clergy for failing to report information disclosed in connection with a religious confession." It has carefully considered the freedom to manifest religion and concluded — correctly in my opinion — that the obligation does not infringe this. It states, as is recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that freely practising religion is not an absolute right and can be reasonably abridged to protect the "fundamental rights and freedoms of others". And at least where there is a significant problem of abuse, the United Nations thinks reporting should be mandatory, without exception. The Committee for the Rights of the Child recommended in 2014 to the Holy See, where of all places it would have made clear if it wanted to except the confessional, that it "44(e) Establish clear rules, mechanisms and procedures for the mandatory reporting of all suspected cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation to law enforcement authorities". [Emphasis added.] After the revelations of the massive level of clerical child abuse in Ireland, the UN made calls for such legislation there and, eventually, this was enacted a few years ago - without a "confessional" exemption. Predictably the Catholic hierarchy in Australia has opposed the idea with its customary self-serving belligerence. However, if the obligation to report abuse applies to everyone, then it must surely apply to what a perpetrator says in confession. In a recent article, subtitled Breaking the Seal of Confession Could Pit Church Against State the president of the Australian Catholic Bishop's conference is quoted from 2012: "priests will guard the sanctity of the seal of confession with their very lives. ... They would certainly undergo imprisonment rather than violate it". And even in Ireland there was no confessional opt out; objections there were clothed in pragmatic terms "obliging priests to pass on information received from penitents in the confessional, is a fiction, since no such information will be forthcoming." Another objection that the Church uses is that the breaking the seal of confession violates 'canon law'. But there can only be one legitimate law that decides this issue and that is the democratically-determined human rights-compliant law of the land. Senior Australian clerics telling us they are keen, or at least prepared, to go to prison to protect child abusers is not something that will impress most citizens. Most will recognise it as an attempt by the Catholic Church to promote its own law as being superior to, and beyond the reach of, the law of the land that everyone else must obey. The Catholic hierarchy claims that breaking the confidence of confession will "make things worse". But just how much worse can it get than 4,444 clerical perpetrators that have been identified? And how many clerics must have known – whether or not via the confessional – about those thousands of perpetrators and felt justified in keeping silent, while the children continued to be abused? One of the top lawyers fighting clerical abuse of minors and vulnerable adults, Richard Scorer, referred in his book Betrayed about RC abuse in England to the case of Father James Robinson in Birmingham. This case casts doubt on claims that confession, when not accompanied by mandatory reporting, would lead to perpetrators handing themselves in. There were three complaints about Robinson made by a boy to three separate priests in confessionals in 1972-3. Obviously these were not acted on. It was not until 2010 that Robinson was finally jailed for 21 years after decades of horrific abuse. Reports suggest that the imprisoned Gerald Francis Ridsdale abused hundreds of children in Australia, starting from his ordination in 1961. Even he agreed with the Commission "from my experience and what I've done and the damage that I've done" that the confessor should tell the police if someone had confessed to a crime. The Commission has seen a similar pattern and said "We are satisfied that confession is a forum where ... clergy have disclosed their abusive behaviour in order to deal with their own guilt. We heard evidence that perpetrators who confessed to sexually abusing children went on to reoffend and seek forgiveness again." It concluded "that the importance of protecting children from child sexual abuse means that there should be no exemption from the failure to report offence for clergy in relation to information disclosed in or in connection with a religious confession." And it looks like the Commission will prevail. As an Australian commentator has just observed "Ireland passed the Children First Act in 2015, which required mandatory reporting from clergy, and if the experience there is anything to go by, Australia may need to ready itself to punish Catholic priests who refuse to break the seal of confession." Some in the Church have long expected this move and Juliette Hughes-Norwood, a Catholic from Melbourne wants the law to change. "Have decency — put children first, put human dignity first not your position." Australia's Commission was large, lawyer-led and established the huge number of perpetrators. It has come out with well-considered hard-hitting recommendations including those for legislative change. The equivalent UK body, The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse is on a much smaller scale and after much controversy is now on its fourth chair, a social worker. We need this inquiry that still has several years yet to run to be hard-hitting and ruthlessly forensic in its examinations. We need individuals and institutions to be made accountable and thorough concrete recommendations. It must not be a wrist-slapping exercise. Attempts have been made at Westminster to introduce legislation covering institutional abuse, but so far unsuccessfully. The Government is not enthusiastic – surely not because it might unleash even more cases? The Anglican Church originally supported tough legislation. Whether it still does is unclear. I hope that the impressively professional Australian report and well-thought-out recommendations will make the Government pull its socks up and put some much-needed backbone into our own work in this area. Mandate Now is an organisation pressing for effective legislation for "regulated activities" (broadly, for abuse in institutions). It is understandably concerned that the Government will quietly ditch mandatory reporting for a face-saving "duty to act", which will be unenforceable and therefore ineffective. You may wish to consider supporting Mandate Now. Above all, we all need to take every opportunity to press the Government into introduce robust mandatory reporting on regulated activities. Image of the confessional is by Bruno Bord (link) Licence: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) Readers may also appreciate this supportive story in the Guardian, written by a woman who told her priest about being sexually abused when she was 16.
	Joint faith school campus brings segregation under one roof News \| Fri, 18th Aug 2017 A new £17m campus which houses Catholic and Jewish faith schools together has opened in East Renfrewshire. St Clare's Primary, a Catholic school, will share its premises with the Jewish Calderwood Lodge and a non-denominational nursery class. The campus in Newton Mearns, near Glasgow, will include features such as a shared central amphitheatre, outdoor obstacle trails and two sports pitches. East Renfrewshire Council welcomed the news of the joint campus. "By sharing ideas and knowledge, all our pupils at this new joint campus will enjoy an enriched learning environment," said Paul O'Kane, the council's convener of education. But Alistair McBay, NSS vice-president and spokesperson for Scotland, said the new campus "clears a remarkably low bar". "This is not an example of inclusive education. The children involved are still being defined and segregated according to their parents' religion. And faith groups are still responsible for running their education. "Bringing two faith schools together under one roof does not create a cohesive society. In many countries organised religion plays no special role in schooling. Scotland should follow their lead." Religious groups have previously obstructed plans to introduce joint campuses in Scotland by demanding segregation. In 2004 the Catholic Church withdrew support for plans to create seven shared sites for Catholic and non-denominational schools in North Lanarkshire. Its representatives said the campuses would require separate entrances, staff rooms, toilets, gyms and nurseries for 'Catholic children'. There are also concerns that segregated education has fostered sectarianism in Scotland. Last month the leader of Scotland's biggest teachers' union said non-Catholics were being deterred from applying to Catholic schools because teachers could be vetted according to their religious views. This was despite the fact that the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that a record number of Scots – almost six in ten – had no religion. Religious groups have a long history of involvement in Scottish education. In 1872 the state took responsibility for schools away from churches and some other private groups. But in return churches were granted a statutory role on education issues. Its representatives still enjoy a legal right to places on council education committees. In 2014 a report suggested church representatives held the balance of power on 19 local authority education committees. Meanwhile one MSP said churches had "exerted undue influence" over decisions on joint campus proposals in these committees. But there are signs that faith-based education may soon be rolled back in Scotland. Last month The Times reported that the Scottish government was planning to hand over councils' responsibilities to new bodies which will have no automatic religious seats on them. Mr McBay said church leaders had "held unearned power in Scotland's schools for too long" and added: "It is high time to put our children's interests ahead of those of established religion."
	Caught between Hindu and Buddhist nationalists: Rohingya Muslims face expulsion News \| Thu, 17th Aug 2017 The Indian government plans to deport 40,000 Rohingya Muslims living in the country to Myanmar after labelling them all illegal immigrants. Last week Kiren Rijiju, the junior interior minister, told parliament that the central government had directed state authorities to identify and deport illegal immigrants. He said this included Rohingya, who face persecution in Buddhist-majority Myanmar. And in an interview with Reuters, Rijiju said the measures would even apply to the 16,500 Rohingya who have been given identity cards by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The UNHCR says the cards help to "prevent harassment, arbitrary arrests, detention and deportation". "We can't stop them from registering," Rijiju said. "But we are not [a] signatory to the accord on refugees. As far as we are concerned they are all illegal immigrants. They have no basis to live here. Anybody who is [an] illegal migrant will be deported." The Indian government says it is in talks with Bangladesh and Myanmar about the plan for deportation. "There's a procedure, there is a rule of law," Rijiju said in his interview. "We can't throw them out just like that. We can't dump them in the Bay of Bengal." Roughly one million Rohingya live in Myanmar, a Buddhist-majority country. But in recent months tens of thousands have fled amid an intensifying military crackdown in the western state of Rakhine. Some have fled to Bangladesh, India and south-east Asia. The UN has said the Rohingya are being collectively punished for militant attacks, although the Burmese government disputes this. In February the UN's special adviser said the violence could amount to crimes against humanity. There is increasing concern over rising Hindu nationalism in India. In recent years there have been attacks on churches and mosques; Hindu groups have engaged in forced conversions; and there have been crackdowns on the sale and possession of beef. Last month Ram Nath Kovind, a low-caste politician backed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's conservative religious faction, was elected president. In March, Modi appointed Yogi Adityanath as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh – a state of 200m people, around a fifth of whom are Muslim. Adityanath founded the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a religious activist organisation which critics say is a Hindu supremacist group. In one incident a decade ago, court documents allege that Adityanath's followers went on a rampage, burning Muslim-owned properties and an Islamic mausoleum. The National Secular Society said the Indian authorities' stance was "deeply troubling". A spokesperson said: "Merging religion and nationalism will always create 'others' to be excluded and discriminated against." Image from Kiren Rijiju's official Facebook page, Rijiju with the Prime Minister.