Newsline 20 May 2016

Not a member? The most tangible way of supporting our work is by becoming a member and contributing funds to enable us to campaign effectively; the more we have, the more we can do. If you believe, as we do, that a secular Britain is our best chance to achieve true equality for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, then please join us and become part of what is possibly the most important debate of the 21st century. Together we can create a fairer and more equal society.

Don't forget our early bird offer is still open, so make sure to get your ticket for our upcoming conference before the end of May!

News, Blogs & Opinion

	Prayers scrapped at Bridgnorth Town Council meetings News \| Fri, 20th May 2016 A town council in Shropshire has voted to drop prayers from its meetings over concerns that the imposition of prayer was putting people off from attending. Bridgenorth council voted to scrap Christian prayers after councillors said they fear they are putting off the public and discouraging potential new councillors of no faith or of another faith from coming forward. The motion was tabled by former mayor Edward Marshall, who argued "By saying prayers at council meetings we are, as a group of people, essentially imposing our beliefs on others." The council was split on the issue, but the motion passed on the casting vote of current mayor Valerie Voysey, who said she was "willing to be unpopular". "I think prayers are a personal thing," Councillor Voysey said. "I am willing to be unpopular on it. I am not anti-religion, I just think it's a private thing and I don't think it has to be part of our meetings." In a paper explaining the rationale for dropping prayers, circulated prior to the meeting, Councillor Marshall said members of the public and guests who attend a council meeting for the first time were "surprised that everyone stands for prayers". "In Britain anyone is allowed to have and follow any religious believes they desire, and that includes the option of having no religious beliefs. Christians always have the option of saying prayers publicly and collectively in church, chapel and other meeting rooms, or in private at any time." "Over the last few decades, Britain has become a much more multi faith society." "Whilst it is probably true that a majority of the population are not too concerned about saying prayers at meetings, would this still be the case if one of the minority religions imposed its own form of worship on to Council meetings. Probably not." But the decision to drop prayers was attacked by Councillor David Cooper who said he had had his "ear bitten off" by residents who thought it was "atrocious" that such a move had even been considered. The move was however welcome by the National Secular Society which congratulated the Council on its "principled decision". Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns director, said: "It's good to see local councils recognising that local politics should be equally welcoming to all sections of society. "Everyone has the right to manifest their religion, but that shouldn't extend to allowing believers to impose acts of worship on those that do not share their faith."
	BBC’s output "too Christian" says head of religion and ethics News \| Tue, 17th May 2016 An internal review has found the BBC's religious output is "too Christian" and recommended an increase in its Muslim, Hindu and Sikh programming. Aaqil Ahmed, the broadcaster's head of religion and ethics, compiled the report following consultation with non-Christians who expressed their belief that the BBC is disproportionate in its religious content. BBC director general Lord Hall is now examining the report and could make changes to religious output. Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain called for the BBC to televise Friday prayers from a mosque, cover Eid and show children attending madrasahs after school for Koranic instruction. But he added: "We would not wish Christians to have any less exposure." A BBC spokesman told the London Evening Standard that the BBC was intending to do "more programming around Christianity and more on other faiths as well", adding that there was "absolutely no question of an 'either or' on our output." Stephen Evans of the National Secular Society agreed that the BBC's religious output has "failed to reflect Britain's changing religious landscape" but said the answer was to change the nature of the programming rather than creating more "worship-based" content aimed at minority faiths. He said: "It would be good to see the BBC focussing on cutting edge, informative and challenging programming about religion and belief, rather than broadcasting acts of worship and programming that simply evangelises for a particular religion, which is both unpopular and alienating to the vast majority of people." In recent years the BBC has gradually reduced the hours devoted to religious broadcasting. In 2015 a BBC Trust consultation on speech radio found that religious programmes are the least liked and least well received radio shows. A TV industry report from 2013 found religion to be least popular genre of programming on TV.
	UK government must ensure it protects free speech with new counter-extremism plans News \| Wed, 18th May 2016 A broad coalition of campaign groups including the National Secular Society has warned that proposals contained in the Queen's Speech could criminalise a "wide swathe of speech." Campaigners say the government's planned Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill must be carefully crafted to avoid damaging freedom of expression. "The government's move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all," said Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship. "We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen." The government's plans to tackle extremism through a "new civil order regime" and other measures must not undermine the very values it aims to defend, free expression organisations said on Wednesday. Index on Censorship, English PEN, the National Secular Society, the Christian Institute, ARTICLE 19, Big Brother Watch, Manifesto Club and the Peter Tatchell Foundation welcomed plans to consult on the matter, following their demands earlier this year. The proposals for a new law, outlined in the Queen's Speech, are more ambiguous than earlier proposals made by this government, but nevertheless leave open broad measures to police a wide swathe of speech and should be resisted, the groups said. The new legislation will include giving law enforcement agencies new powers to protect vulnerable people – including children – "from those who seek to brainwash them with extremism propaganda so we build a stronger society around our shared liberal values of tolerance and respect", according to thebackground notes accompanying the Queen's Speech. More specifically, the government proposals are to legislate: · Stronger powers to disrupt extremists and protect the public. · Powers to intervene in intensive unregulated education settings which teach hate and drive communities apart. · A new civil order regime to restrict extremist activity, following consultation. · Closing loopholes so that Ofcom can continue to protect consumers who watch internet-streamed television content from outside the EU on Freeview. The new proposals should avoid creating an environment that could make it even harder for people of all faiths and ideologies to express their beliefs and opinions, the groups said. Current legislation already prohibits incitement to violence and terrorism, and a compelling case for broadening them further through civil measures has not been made. "The government's move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all," said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. "We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen." The groups said plans to introduce new laws in this area presented three main risks: 1. Definitions It is still not clear how new legislation would deal with the problem of defining "extremism" in a way that would not threaten free speech. The government has previously defined extremism broadly as "the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs". The continued lack of a clear definition risks outlawing any political expression that does not reflect mainstream or popular views. Britain already has a host of laws to tackle the incitement of terrorist acts, as well as racial and religious hatred. The government has previously been criticised for the broad definitions of "terrorism" in existing legislation, and the definition of "extremism" in the Prevent Strategy. The proposed bill must not introduce new vague terminology and widen the net even further. "The government's approach to extremism is unfocused. Unless we can make them see sense, the range of people who could find themselves labelled 'extremist' by their own government is about to get a whole lot wider," said Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute. 2. Nature of new civil orders The government is ambiguous on whether they are still considering "extremism disruption orders" or "banning orders" within the package of civil measures. Though the promised consultation is welcome, these draconian measures are clearly not off the table. Baroness Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, has said previously that extremists need to be exposed, challenged and countered. The proposed measures would have the opposite effect and should not find their way into the new civil order regime. "Extremism banning orders could mean political activists – or any other activists deemed to be 'anti-democratic' – such as environmental activists – could be outlawed in future, thereby undermining democracy itself," said Jo Glanville, Director of English PEN. Extremist disruption orders (EDO), suggested under earlier plans for the bill, could have a similar chilling effect on free expression and democracy. Under original plans for EDOs, the police would be able to apply to the high court for an order to restrict the "harmful activities" of an "extremist" individual. The definition of "harmful" could include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress, or the ill-defined "threat to the functioning of democracy". Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: "The prosecution thresholds for EDOs – as originally envisaged – are worryingly low – civil, not criminal – yet the consequences of granting of such an order, even if not broken, are likely to be very serious, e.g. rendering the recipient unemployable. Few faced with such a threat are likely to have the resources to mount any defence as proceedings will be at the High Court." "No convincing case has been made for the necessity of new measures to restrict free speech. Existing measures are already deterring individuals and groups from engaging in open debate on important issues. The plans re-announced today, though watered down, do not sufficiently address criticism the government has received; they not only threaten to further chill legitimate speech, but may also fuel divisive ideologies and make us less safe," said Thomas Hughes, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19. 3. International implications Governments across the world – such as Russia, Turkey and Egypt – are increasingly using national security laws to censor free expression, including in the media. The government's moves are likely to legitimise and embolden these efforts, setting a counter-productive example. UN and regional human rights experts have jointly raised concerns regarding the potential impact of broadly defined initiatives to counter violent extremism on the free expression of minority and dissenting views. They have called for responses to violent extremism to be evidence based, and to respect international human rights law on freedom of expression and non-discrimination. Conclusion We call on the government to consult widely with all stakeholders, including civil society and minority groups, to ensure that a bill intended to tackle extremism does not undermine one of the values at the heart of democracy: that of free speech for all.
	Thousands of children “hidden away” in illegal faith schools at risk of indoctrination and extremism News \| Wed, 18th May 2016 Ofsted has found over 50 suspected illegal faith schools since January, prompting renewed fears about thousands of children being taught in unregistered schools with no oversight. An Ofsted crackdown on unregistered, illegal schools has found "more than 100" illegal schools since January, of which around half were faith-based. A disproportionate number of the schools, one-third, were Islamic and one-in-six were Christian or Jewish. Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw said the institutions were "putting children at risk of harm, including the risk of exposure to extremism and radicalisation." Sir Michael told Education Secretary Nicky Morgan that he was "extremely concerned about the number of children and young people attending these schools who may be at significant risk of harm and indoctrination." The effort to identify the unregistered schools was undertaken by "a new taskforce within Ofsted" set-up explicitly "to investigate suspected illegal schools and pursue those individuals responsible for operating them." Seven inspectors identified 100 illegal 'schools' in less than five months, but Sir Michael said that the number found already "is likely to represent only a small proportion of the illegal schools operating across the country." The Ofsted chief said that the number already found confirmed his fear that "there are many more children hidden away from the view of the authorities in unregistered schools across the country than previously thought." Seven warning notices have now been sent to the suspected illegal schools and Ofsted has said it will support the Crown Prosecution Service in "vigorously" pursuing cases against those who run unregistered schools. The Chief Inspector also issued a warning about parents using home schooling as a cover to send their children to illegal faith schools. Sir Michael wrote that local authorities need to show "vigilance" to make sure suspected illegal schools are identified "as quickly as possible." Bradford Council was recently accused of being in "denial" over illegal religious schools – which can allow extremism and separatism to ferment. In the Queen's Speech the Government announced that it will "consult on powers to enable government to intervene where councils fail to tackle extremism." The Government has also said it will stand up for "our liberal values" by "taking on the extremists" and "protecting young people in unregulated schools," plans which were welcomed by the National Secular Society. Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns director, said: "It is very welcome that action is being taken now, but it has been far too slow and a generation of children have already passed through these so called 'schools'. Many of those pupils will have been denied a secular education, indoctrinated or exposed to extremist and separatist ideas, so for those pupils this action has come too late. "This isn't just about security and extremism. These children all have the right to a proper education. Society has failed to protect that right." Concerns about Jewish children disappearing from the education system were raised by the Jewish Chronicle as early as 2008. See also: Allowing children to languish in illegal religious 'schools' is the bigotry of low expectations.
	The gay community should recognise and oppose its chief oppressor Opinion \| Tue, 17th May 2016 While people of all faiths and none have campaigned for and against LGBTQ rights, the merger of religious and state power has always been the greatest threat to LGBTQ rights around the world and turns bigotry into discrimination, argues NSS president Terry Sanderson. The International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) aims to draw attention to the daily acts of cruelty meted out to LGBT people around the world. It wants to shame the dictators and the religious fanatics, the demagogues and also those duly elected representatives who work tirelessly to humiliate, violate and occasionally kill LGBT people. While here in Britain, and in many parts of the West, gays have had many of the restrictions and discriminations against them lifted, in other parts of the world the situation seems to be getting worse. In the Islamic world in particular the lethal aggression towards homosexuals is increasing in line with religious fanaticism. In the USA one state after another enacts legislation that will rob gay people of their rights and render them second class citizens. In Russia the state and the Orthodox Church draw closer and gay people feel the consequences. In China, a nascent gay movement has been crushed by authoritarianism. In India, the power of the Hindu nationalists has seen recent progressive legislation reversed. In Poland, and other parts of Eastern Europe, the Catholic Church still has the power to impose itself on the law-making process, and so progress for gay rights is halted in its tracks. In Italy the Vatican still wields huge political power and has stood in the way of civil partnership legislation for many years. However, it has been over-ruled by the European Court of Human Rights and this week Italy has been compelled to introduce same-sex civil partnerships. Catholic Church representatives say this is "creeping fascism" - which is rich coming from a church that signed a very lucrative concordat with the fascist government of Benito Mussolini (still in effect today and still rendering huge amounts of Italian taxpayers' cash into Vatican coffers). Most of these regressive initiatives are propelled by religious beliefs. Evangelical Christians have shown skill and determination in manipulating the political process in America, getting themselves elected to office and then delivering the spiteful goods to their religious supporters. I was touring the southern states of the USA earlier this year at a time when North Carolina was enacting the notorious House Bill 2, which robbed gay people of their rights at work and trans people of their dignity. As we drove through the towns and cities in that state, it seemed that almost every other building was a church, every billboard had a religious slogan, every car declared the driver a soldier of the Lord. Even the diner where we had lunch had Bible quotations on the menu and religious pictures in the lavatory. In many African countries there is tension between Christians and Muslims. But churches and mosques can unite over one thing – their hatred of gay people. They demand punitive punishments for gay sex and governments eagerly respond by enacting harsher and harsher laws. Even in Britain there is still a small, but vociferous evangelical rump that ceaselessly tries to reverse the gains that the gay community has made. One court case after another claims that Christians are being forced to act against their beliefs by having to treat gay people as equal citizens. These self-righteous activists have not succeeded to any significant degree yet, but they never stop pushing – and who knows what the future holds as politics become scarily unpredictable. So, on this year's International Day Against Homophobia we find some gay people – residing in the enlightened parts of the world - basking in the reassuring light of hard-won equality while others, in nations still dominated by religion, are still living in a dark and threatening hell. Violence against and even murder of gay people is a daily occurrence somewhere in the world. Hatred is the hourly lot of some. Some Christians, Muslims and Jews insist that their holy books demand that gay sex and those who practise it be rejected and punished. Not all believers want to carry these biblical and koranic injunctions to their literal conclusion, of course, but too many of them do. Literalist religious believers seem ever able to pick and choose which laws of their holy books they want to observe – and always have a justification for the ones they don't. Despite the fact that almost all the discrimination that gay people suffer has a religious basis, we still have gay people who make excuses for it. We are told, for instance, that a disproportionate number of gay people are priests and vicars who seem able to support the homophobia pedalled by their superiors. There are gay people in the pews, donating money and resources to their oppressors. Personally I have never been able to understand how any self-respecting gay person would want to be part of an institution that is actively hostile to them, that wants to rob them and others like them of the right to love. If there is a choice, why stay? For some, of course, the religion in which they have been raised is often deeply entwined with their ethnic and cultural identity: leaving is a much more complicated, frightening and sometimes dangerous route. Casting off religion for some people may also mean casting off family and community support, leaving them to face the racism of wider society on their own. It might also lead to claims of "apostasy" and in some places that can be fatal. I have met plenty of Muslim and Hindu and Sikh gay people – male and female - who have been compelled to marry in order to please their families and their cultural traditions. They are unhappy, their spouse is unhappy, but the imam or the priest is satisfied, and so is the 'honour' of the family. And for some that's all that seems to matter. I have sympathy for the plight of gay people caught up in such traditionalist, unyielding societies. But I rage against the religion that has imprisoned them in this way. The International Day Against Homophobia hopes to raise the issue of the worldwide savagery that is directed at LGBT people. It needs to clearly acknowledge and challenge the source of so much of it. As Iran hangs young gay men from cranes and Islamic State throws them from high buildings, while Putin's thugs beat people on gay pride marches and Nigeria throws gay people into jail for long periods, we must speak the truth: religion is the enemy of gay people, it has declared war on our rights and even on our lives. The supposedly benign Church of England tried to derail gay marriage legislation - and just about every other piece of progressive reform in relation to gay rights. The Catholic Church is led by a fork-tongued phony who promises liberality but never delivers it. The ex-gay movement wants to eradicate homosexuality through prayer and "counselling" and in the process damaging the minds of countless men and women who have been brainwashed into believing their sexuality is evil. The openly murderous thugs of al-Qaeda and ISIS are at least honest about their desire to kill gay people, whereas the evangelical-controlled Tea Party in the USA undermines gay rights bit by bit, claiming that somehow their religious liberty is compromised by extending freedom to gay people. The International Day Against Homophobia is an opportunity for the gay community around the world to call out its religious oppressors and acknowledge that organised religion has declared war on gay rights. It's time for the gloves to come off. Terry Sanderson is the president of the National Secular Society. The views expressed in our blogs are those of the author, and may not represent the views of the National Secular Society. You can follow Terry on Twitter: @TerrySanderson4 His new book The Adventures of a Happy Homosexual; memoirs of an unlikely activist is now available.
	Fugitive London priest arrested in Kosovo over child abuse allegations News \| Mon, 16th May 2016 A top Benedictine monk who has been accused of child abuse has been arrested after five years on the run. Laurence Soper, now 72, former abbot of the Benedictine Ealing Abbey, was arrested in Kosovo on Wednesday 11 May. He faces serious allegations of child abuse allegedly carried out at St Benedict's school in Ealing, west London, where he taught between 1972 and 1984. The fee-paying Catholic school is attached to Ealing Abbey where Soper was abbot from 1991-2000. In 2009, a former headteacher of St Benedict's school was jailed for eight years for abuse spanning 36 years. Both were named in a highly critical report into abuse at the School prepared by Lord Carlile QC. Soper had been the subject of a European Arrest Warrant since 2012, following his failure to return to a police interview in London in 2011 in the expectation that he was about to be arrested. By that stage, Soper had served for ten years as worldwide treasurer of the Benedictine Order in Rome and had been responsible for major reforms to the Order's finances. Before becoming a monk he had worked for Barclays Bank. Neither Kosovo, nor Montenegro where he had reportedly previously been spotted, are part of the EU, so are not subject to the European Arrest Warrant obligations. Attempts are now being made to have him returned to the UK. He was living under an assumed name and appears to have been a lodger in a house and was not employed. Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society commented: "When Soper was bailed, investigators neither took a picture of him nor required him to surrender his passport. Could this have been simply because he was a cleric? Soper was able to return to the Vatican from outside the EU and empty his bank account there without the police being alerted; was this despite or because he was a high-profile figure in the Church? We hope investigators will establish the answers to these questions and whether Soper received any assistance to remain a fugitive for so long."
	Did Christian charities really need twenty five years to complete a form? Opinion \| Thu, 19th May 2016 A little known piece of legislation allows Christian charities to avoid complying with charity law. Who benefits, asks Ed Moore. Becoming an official charity provides a non-profit organisation with substantial benefits, especially freedom from many forms of taxation. In return all that's needed is to meet the requirements of the Charities Act 2011. Who regulates a charity is straightforward; if 'Exempt' you have an industry-specific regulator, if tiny (earning under £5,000 a year) you regulate yourself. Everyone else should register with the Charity Commission, unless you're an 'Excepted' charity. Excepted? It's a strange concept, created by a piece of legislation called the Charities (Exception from Registration) Regulations 1996 which allows certain types of religious charities to not comply with the requirements of the Charities Act. A law allowing privileged groups to ignore a law. The regulations allow charities looking after graves to be permanently excepted but also allowed named religious charities to be temporarily excepted, until 1st March 2001. The religious bodies in question were: The reason given for this law was to allow time for the charitable bodies involved to get ready for registration. Quite why only religious charities were expected to struggle to understand the process remains a mystery. Time moved on and the 1^st March 2001 approached. Are the religious charities now ready? Apparently not. A new regulation was passed, the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2001. The explanatory note on the regulation stated: "These Regulations extend the temporary exception presently granted to certain religious charities from the requirement to be registered under the Charities Act 1993. The temporary exception, which would have expired on 1st March 2001, is extended until 1st October 2002." No explanation as to who suggested the extension or who agreed to it. No justification or discussion on the pros and cons, just a new date. So eighteen more months to get ready. Time rolls by, are the charities ready? Apparently not as a new regulation is quietly passed, the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 extending the exception until 1st October 2007. Five more years to get ready. This filling in of a charity registration form must be very difficult for these Christian groups. What happened when the new date rolled around? You guessed it, the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 extended the exception for five more years, to 1^st October 2012. The form must be really, really complicated! Then in 2012 (here we go again) we see the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 which extended the exception to the 31st March 2014. Only two years more this time so that must be it, surely? No of course not, for now here is the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 which extends the exception once again, only this time for SEVEN years, until 31st March 2021. A temporary exception law made in 1996 to excuse religious bodies from obeying the law has now been extended five times for a total of twenty five years. A more detailed Explanatory Memorandum was produced this time to explain the decision but the conclusions are not wholly convincing. From the note: "The review report, 'Trusted and Independent: Giving charity back to charities', included a recommendation (chapter 5, recommendation 9) that the exception should end in stages over a period of three years". Yet the author explains Cabinet Office thinking to support extending again: "The main concern is that to do so will impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on up to 26,000 small religious charities at a time when many of them may be under pressure." So a Charity Act passed by parliament, reviewed and updated regularly is too large a burden for a religious charity, as decided not by the Charity Commission but by the Cabinet Office? What proof was gathered that this is the case? Who lobbied for the extension? Apparently the 'representative bodies' of the affected churches were consulted; they being given a choice of scrapping the regulation, extending for five years or extending for seven. No points for guessing the outcome: The representative bodies unanimously preferred the seven year extension. Worryingly the memorandum's conclusion on Impact is dismissive: "10.1 There is expected to be no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies. "10.2 There is expected to be no impact on the public sector. "10.3 An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen." So excusing charities of your choice from registration has no downside. Strange that other government bodies disagree. In July 2012 the Trusted and Independent report on the Charities Act 2006 concluded: "5.53 The position of excepted charities arguably creates an imbalance. The regulatory requirements they are subject to have not kept pace with those applied by the Charity Commission as its role has developed from registrar to regulator". Even prior to this the report Private Action, Public Benefit - A Review of Charities and the Wider Not-For-Profit Sector from 2002 came to the same conclusion: "Exempt and excepted charities "7.89 In order to promote trust and confidence in the regulatory system as a whole it is important that all organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability requirements." It went even further, raising a concern the whole nature of Excepted charities may be illegal. "7.91 Exceptions are also regarded as offering privileged treatment to some charities and are open to the challenge of unfairness. In particular, the religious denominations with "excepted" status are all Christian. This is unlikely to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998." The regulation undermines the whole ethos of regulation for the charity sector. It is set in law without any public discussion or parliamentary oversight and only asks the affected bodies themselves whether they would like it to continue. Let's hope there isn't a Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 being prepared.

Read Elsewhere

Organisation of Islamic Cooperation blocks 11 LGBT groups from attending UN Aids meetings

A group of 51 Muslim states has blocked 11 gay and transgender organizations from attending a high-level meeting at the United Nations next month on ending Aids, sparking a protest by the US, Canada and the EU.

NSS Speaks Out

This week we appeared on LBC and Talk 2 Me Radio to discuss religious programming by the BBC. Our campaigns director Stephen Evans spoke to BBC local radio stations and our president Terry Sanderson spoke to LBC about the dozens of illegal religious schools uncovered by Ofsted since January. Stephen also went on Free Radio Shropshire and Black Country Radio to talk about discriminatory subsidises for transport to faith schools.

Quotes of the Week

"Until Muslims, en masse, can get even a basic handle on the concept of personal liberty and freedom – something people of other faiths and no faith throughout Europe have generally managed to do — I fear that as far as the harm Islam can cause, we really ain't seen nothing yet."
Shazia Hobbs, Sedaa.

"Before this escalates any further and becomes a habitual political tool, we should act to stop religion from re-entering our political discourse and becoming a key factor in the political choices that we make."
Salvator Murtas, Conservative Home.

Essays of the Week

The majority of police forces' failure to tackle "honour"-based violence is punishing victims.
Shaheen Hashmat, New Statesman.

Criminalising people for thinking bad thoughts spreads extremism – we should shudder at this Orwellian dictum.
Haras Rafiq, Independent.

Here's why people don't take right-wing Evangelicals so seriously anymore.
Valerie Tarico, Raw Story.

	Prayers scrapped at Bridgnorth Town Council meetings News \| Fri, 20th May 2016 A town council in Shropshire has voted to drop prayers from its meetings over concerns that the imposition of prayer was putting people off from attending. Bridgenorth council voted to scrap Christian prayers after councillors said they fear they are putting off the public and discouraging potential new councillors of no faith or of another faith from coming forward. The motion was tabled by former mayor Edward Marshall, who argued "By saying prayers at council meetings we are, as a group of people, essentially imposing our beliefs on others." The council was split on the issue, but the motion passed on the casting vote of current mayor Valerie Voysey, who said she was "willing to be unpopular". "I think prayers are a personal thing," Councillor Voysey said. "I am willing to be unpopular on it. I am not anti-religion, I just think it's a private thing and I don't think it has to be part of our meetings." In a paper explaining the rationale for dropping prayers, circulated prior to the meeting, Councillor Marshall said members of the public and guests who attend a council meeting for the first time were "surprised that everyone stands for prayers". "In Britain anyone is allowed to have and follow any religious believes they desire, and that includes the option of having no religious beliefs. Christians always have the option of saying prayers publicly and collectively in church, chapel and other meeting rooms, or in private at any time." "Over the last few decades, Britain has become a much more multi faith society." "Whilst it is probably true that a majority of the population are not too concerned about saying prayers at meetings, would this still be the case if one of the minority religions imposed its own form of worship on to Council meetings. Probably not." But the decision to drop prayers was attacked by Councillor David Cooper who said he had had his "ear bitten off" by residents who thought it was "atrocious" that such a move had even been considered. The move was however welcome by the National Secular Society which congratulated the Council on its "principled decision". Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns director, said: "It's good to see local councils recognising that local politics should be equally welcoming to all sections of society. "Everyone has the right to manifest their religion, but that shouldn't extend to allowing believers to impose acts of worship on those that do not share their faith."
	BBC’s output "too Christian" says head of religion and ethics News \| Tue, 17th May 2016 An internal review has found the BBC's religious output is "too Christian" and recommended an increase in its Muslim, Hindu and Sikh programming. Aaqil Ahmed, the broadcaster's head of religion and ethics, compiled the report following consultation with non-Christians who expressed their belief that the BBC is disproportionate in its religious content. BBC director general Lord Hall is now examining the report and could make changes to religious output. Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain called for the BBC to televise Friday prayers from a mosque, cover Eid and show children attending madrasahs after school for Koranic instruction. But he added: "We would not wish Christians to have any less exposure." A BBC spokesman told the London Evening Standard that the BBC was intending to do "more programming around Christianity and more on other faiths as well", adding that there was "absolutely no question of an 'either or' on our output." Stephen Evans of the National Secular Society agreed that the BBC's religious output has "failed to reflect Britain's changing religious landscape" but said the answer was to change the nature of the programming rather than creating more "worship-based" content aimed at minority faiths. He said: "It would be good to see the BBC focussing on cutting edge, informative and challenging programming about religion and belief, rather than broadcasting acts of worship and programming that simply evangelises for a particular religion, which is both unpopular and alienating to the vast majority of people." In recent years the BBC has gradually reduced the hours devoted to religious broadcasting. In 2015 a BBC Trust consultation on speech radio found that religious programmes are the least liked and least well received radio shows. A TV industry report from 2013 found religion to be least popular genre of programming on TV.
	UK government must ensure it protects free speech with new counter-extremism plans News \| Wed, 18th May 2016 A broad coalition of campaign groups including the National Secular Society has warned that proposals contained in the Queen's Speech could criminalise a "wide swathe of speech." Campaigners say the government's planned Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill must be carefully crafted to avoid damaging freedom of expression. "The government's move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all," said Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship. "We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen." The government's plans to tackle extremism through a "new civil order regime" and other measures must not undermine the very values it aims to defend, free expression organisations said on Wednesday. Index on Censorship, English PEN, the National Secular Society, the Christian Institute, ARTICLE 19, Big Brother Watch, Manifesto Club and the Peter Tatchell Foundation welcomed plans to consult on the matter, following their demands earlier this year. The proposals for a new law, outlined in the Queen's Speech, are more ambiguous than earlier proposals made by this government, but nevertheless leave open broad measures to police a wide swathe of speech and should be resisted, the groups said. The new legislation will include giving law enforcement agencies new powers to protect vulnerable people – including children – "from those who seek to brainwash them with extremism propaganda so we build a stronger society around our shared liberal values of tolerance and respect", according to thebackground notes accompanying the Queen's Speech. More specifically, the government proposals are to legislate: · Stronger powers to disrupt extremists and protect the public. · Powers to intervene in intensive unregulated education settings which teach hate and drive communities apart. · A new civil order regime to restrict extremist activity, following consultation. · Closing loopholes so that Ofcom can continue to protect consumers who watch internet-streamed television content from outside the EU on Freeview. The new proposals should avoid creating an environment that could make it even harder for people of all faiths and ideologies to express their beliefs and opinions, the groups said. Current legislation already prohibits incitement to violence and terrorism, and a compelling case for broadening them further through civil measures has not been made. "The government's move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all," said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. "We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen." The groups said plans to introduce new laws in this area presented three main risks: 1. Definitions It is still not clear how new legislation would deal with the problem of defining "extremism" in a way that would not threaten free speech. The government has previously defined extremism broadly as "the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs". The continued lack of a clear definition risks outlawing any political expression that does not reflect mainstream or popular views. Britain already has a host of laws to tackle the incitement of terrorist acts, as well as racial and religious hatred. The government has previously been criticised for the broad definitions of "terrorism" in existing legislation, and the definition of "extremism" in the Prevent Strategy. The proposed bill must not introduce new vague terminology and widen the net even further. "The government's approach to extremism is unfocused. Unless we can make them see sense, the range of people who could find themselves labelled 'extremist' by their own government is about to get a whole lot wider," said Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute. 2. Nature of new civil orders The government is ambiguous on whether they are still considering "extremism disruption orders" or "banning orders" within the package of civil measures. Though the promised consultation is welcome, these draconian measures are clearly not off the table. Baroness Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, has said previously that extremists need to be exposed, challenged and countered. The proposed measures would have the opposite effect and should not find their way into the new civil order regime. "Extremism banning orders could mean political activists – or any other activists deemed to be 'anti-democratic' – such as environmental activists – could be outlawed in future, thereby undermining democracy itself," said Jo Glanville, Director of English PEN. Extremist disruption orders (EDO), suggested under earlier plans for the bill, could have a similar chilling effect on free expression and democracy. Under original plans for EDOs, the police would be able to apply to the high court for an order to restrict the "harmful activities" of an "extremist" individual. The definition of "harmful" could include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress, or the ill-defined "threat to the functioning of democracy". Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: "The prosecution thresholds for EDOs – as originally envisaged – are worryingly low – civil, not criminal – yet the consequences of granting of such an order, even if not broken, are likely to be very serious, e.g. rendering the recipient unemployable. Few faced with such a threat are likely to have the resources to mount any defence as proceedings will be at the High Court." "No convincing case has been made for the necessity of new measures to restrict free speech. Existing measures are already deterring individuals and groups from engaging in open debate on important issues. The plans re-announced today, though watered down, do not sufficiently address criticism the government has received; they not only threaten to further chill legitimate speech, but may also fuel divisive ideologies and make us less safe," said Thomas Hughes, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19. 3. International implications Governments across the world – such as Russia, Turkey and Egypt – are increasingly using national security laws to censor free expression, including in the media. The government's moves are likely to legitimise and embolden these efforts, setting a counter-productive example. UN and regional human rights experts have jointly raised concerns regarding the potential impact of broadly defined initiatives to counter violent extremism on the free expression of minority and dissenting views. They have called for responses to violent extremism to be evidence based, and to respect international human rights law on freedom of expression and non-discrimination. Conclusion We call on the government to consult widely with all stakeholders, including civil society and minority groups, to ensure that a bill intended to tackle extremism does not undermine one of the values at the heart of democracy: that of free speech for all.
	Thousands of children “hidden away” in illegal faith schools at risk of indoctrination and extremism News \| Wed, 18th May 2016 Ofsted has found over 50 suspected illegal faith schools since January, prompting renewed fears about thousands of children being taught in unregistered schools with no oversight. An Ofsted crackdown on unregistered, illegal schools has found "more than 100" illegal schools since January, of which around half were faith-based. A disproportionate number of the schools, one-third, were Islamic and one-in-six were Christian or Jewish. Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw said the institutions were "putting children at risk of harm, including the risk of exposure to extremism and radicalisation." Sir Michael told Education Secretary Nicky Morgan that he was "extremely concerned about the number of children and young people attending these schools who may be at significant risk of harm and indoctrination." The effort to identify the unregistered schools was undertaken by "a new taskforce within Ofsted" set-up explicitly "to investigate suspected illegal schools and pursue those individuals responsible for operating them." Seven inspectors identified 100 illegal 'schools' in less than five months, but Sir Michael said that the number found already "is likely to represent only a small proportion of the illegal schools operating across the country." The Ofsted chief said that the number already found confirmed his fear that "there are many more children hidden away from the view of the authorities in unregistered schools across the country than previously thought." Seven warning notices have now been sent to the suspected illegal schools and Ofsted has said it will support the Crown Prosecution Service in "vigorously" pursuing cases against those who run unregistered schools. The Chief Inspector also issued a warning about parents using home schooling as a cover to send their children to illegal faith schools. Sir Michael wrote that local authorities need to show "vigilance" to make sure suspected illegal schools are identified "as quickly as possible." Bradford Council was recently accused of being in "denial" over illegal religious schools – which can allow extremism and separatism to ferment. In the Queen's Speech the Government announced that it will "consult on powers to enable government to intervene where councils fail to tackle extremism." The Government has also said it will stand up for "our liberal values" by "taking on the extremists" and "protecting young people in unregulated schools," plans which were welcomed by the National Secular Society. Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns director, said: "It is very welcome that action is being taken now, but it has been far too slow and a generation of children have already passed through these so called 'schools'. Many of those pupils will have been denied a secular education, indoctrinated or exposed to extremist and separatist ideas, so for those pupils this action has come too late. "This isn't just about security and extremism. These children all have the right to a proper education. Society has failed to protect that right." Concerns about Jewish children disappearing from the education system were raised by the Jewish Chronicle as early as 2008. See also: Allowing children to languish in illegal religious 'schools' is the bigotry of low expectations.
	The gay community should recognise and oppose its chief oppressor Opinion \| Tue, 17th May 2016 While people of all faiths and none have campaigned for and against LGBTQ rights, the merger of religious and state power has always been the greatest threat to LGBTQ rights around the world and turns bigotry into discrimination, argues NSS president Terry Sanderson. The International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) aims to draw attention to the daily acts of cruelty meted out to LGBT people around the world. It wants to shame the dictators and the religious fanatics, the demagogues and also those duly elected representatives who work tirelessly to humiliate, violate and occasionally kill LGBT people. While here in Britain, and in many parts of the West, gays have had many of the restrictions and discriminations against them lifted, in other parts of the world the situation seems to be getting worse. In the Islamic world in particular the lethal aggression towards homosexuals is increasing in line with religious fanaticism. In the USA one state after another enacts legislation that will rob gay people of their rights and render them second class citizens. In Russia the state and the Orthodox Church draw closer and gay people feel the consequences. In China, a nascent gay movement has been crushed by authoritarianism. In India, the power of the Hindu nationalists has seen recent progressive legislation reversed. In Poland, and other parts of Eastern Europe, the Catholic Church still has the power to impose itself on the law-making process, and so progress for gay rights is halted in its tracks. In Italy the Vatican still wields huge political power and has stood in the way of civil partnership legislation for many years. However, it has been over-ruled by the European Court of Human Rights and this week Italy has been compelled to introduce same-sex civil partnerships. Catholic Church representatives say this is "creeping fascism" - which is rich coming from a church that signed a very lucrative concordat with the fascist government of Benito Mussolini (still in effect today and still rendering huge amounts of Italian taxpayers' cash into Vatican coffers). Most of these regressive initiatives are propelled by religious beliefs. Evangelical Christians have shown skill and determination in manipulating the political process in America, getting themselves elected to office and then delivering the spiteful goods to their religious supporters. I was touring the southern states of the USA earlier this year at a time when North Carolina was enacting the notorious House Bill 2, which robbed gay people of their rights at work and trans people of their dignity. As we drove through the towns and cities in that state, it seemed that almost every other building was a church, every billboard had a religious slogan, every car declared the driver a soldier of the Lord. Even the diner where we had lunch had Bible quotations on the menu and religious pictures in the lavatory. In many African countries there is tension between Christians and Muslims. But churches and mosques can unite over one thing – their hatred of gay people. They demand punitive punishments for gay sex and governments eagerly respond by enacting harsher and harsher laws. Even in Britain there is still a small, but vociferous evangelical rump that ceaselessly tries to reverse the gains that the gay community has made. One court case after another claims that Christians are being forced to act against their beliefs by having to treat gay people as equal citizens. These self-righteous activists have not succeeded to any significant degree yet, but they never stop pushing – and who knows what the future holds as politics become scarily unpredictable. So, on this year's International Day Against Homophobia we find some gay people – residing in the enlightened parts of the world - basking in the reassuring light of hard-won equality while others, in nations still dominated by religion, are still living in a dark and threatening hell. Violence against and even murder of gay people is a daily occurrence somewhere in the world. Hatred is the hourly lot of some. Some Christians, Muslims and Jews insist that their holy books demand that gay sex and those who practise it be rejected and punished. Not all believers want to carry these biblical and koranic injunctions to their literal conclusion, of course, but too many of them do. Literalist religious believers seem ever able to pick and choose which laws of their holy books they want to observe – and always have a justification for the ones they don't. Despite the fact that almost all the discrimination that gay people suffer has a religious basis, we still have gay people who make excuses for it. We are told, for instance, that a disproportionate number of gay people are priests and vicars who seem able to support the homophobia pedalled by their superiors. There are gay people in the pews, donating money and resources to their oppressors. Personally I have never been able to understand how any self-respecting gay person would want to be part of an institution that is actively hostile to them, that wants to rob them and others like them of the right to love. If there is a choice, why stay? For some, of course, the religion in which they have been raised is often deeply entwined with their ethnic and cultural identity: leaving is a much more complicated, frightening and sometimes dangerous route. Casting off religion for some people may also mean casting off family and community support, leaving them to face the racism of wider society on their own. It might also lead to claims of "apostasy" and in some places that can be fatal. I have met plenty of Muslim and Hindu and Sikh gay people – male and female - who have been compelled to marry in order to please their families and their cultural traditions. They are unhappy, their spouse is unhappy, but the imam or the priest is satisfied, and so is the 'honour' of the family. And for some that's all that seems to matter. I have sympathy for the plight of gay people caught up in such traditionalist, unyielding societies. But I rage against the religion that has imprisoned them in this way. The International Day Against Homophobia hopes to raise the issue of the worldwide savagery that is directed at LGBT people. It needs to clearly acknowledge and challenge the source of so much of it. As Iran hangs young gay men from cranes and Islamic State throws them from high buildings, while Putin's thugs beat people on gay pride marches and Nigeria throws gay people into jail for long periods, we must speak the truth: religion is the enemy of gay people, it has declared war on our rights and even on our lives. The supposedly benign Church of England tried to derail gay marriage legislation - and just about every other piece of progressive reform in relation to gay rights. The Catholic Church is led by a fork-tongued phony who promises liberality but never delivers it. The ex-gay movement wants to eradicate homosexuality through prayer and "counselling" and in the process damaging the minds of countless men and women who have been brainwashed into believing their sexuality is evil. The openly murderous thugs of al-Qaeda and ISIS are at least honest about their desire to kill gay people, whereas the evangelical-controlled Tea Party in the USA undermines gay rights bit by bit, claiming that somehow their religious liberty is compromised by extending freedom to gay people. The International Day Against Homophobia is an opportunity for the gay community around the world to call out its religious oppressors and acknowledge that organised religion has declared war on gay rights. It's time for the gloves to come off. Terry Sanderson is the president of the National Secular Society. The views expressed in our blogs are those of the author, and may not represent the views of the National Secular Society. You can follow Terry on Twitter: @TerrySanderson4 His new book The Adventures of a Happy Homosexual; memoirs of an unlikely activist is now available.
	Fugitive London priest arrested in Kosovo over child abuse allegations News \| Mon, 16th May 2016 A top Benedictine monk who has been accused of child abuse has been arrested after five years on the run. Laurence Soper, now 72, former abbot of the Benedictine Ealing Abbey, was arrested in Kosovo on Wednesday 11 May. He faces serious allegations of child abuse allegedly carried out at St Benedict's school in Ealing, west London, where he taught between 1972 and 1984. The fee-paying Catholic school is attached to Ealing Abbey where Soper was abbot from 1991-2000. In 2009, a former headteacher of St Benedict's school was jailed for eight years for abuse spanning 36 years. Both were named in a highly critical report into abuse at the School prepared by Lord Carlile QC. Soper had been the subject of a European Arrest Warrant since 2012, following his failure to return to a police interview in London in 2011 in the expectation that he was about to be arrested. By that stage, Soper had served for ten years as worldwide treasurer of the Benedictine Order in Rome and had been responsible for major reforms to the Order's finances. Before becoming a monk he had worked for Barclays Bank. Neither Kosovo, nor Montenegro where he had reportedly previously been spotted, are part of the EU, so are not subject to the European Arrest Warrant obligations. Attempts are now being made to have him returned to the UK. He was living under an assumed name and appears to have been a lodger in a house and was not employed. Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society commented: "When Soper was bailed, investigators neither took a picture of him nor required him to surrender his passport. Could this have been simply because he was a cleric? Soper was able to return to the Vatican from outside the EU and empty his bank account there without the police being alerted; was this despite or because he was a high-profile figure in the Church? We hope investigators will establish the answers to these questions and whether Soper received any assistance to remain a fugitive for so long."
	Did Christian charities really need twenty five years to complete a form? Opinion \| Thu, 19th May 2016 A little known piece of legislation allows Christian charities to avoid complying with charity law. Who benefits, asks Ed Moore. Becoming an official charity provides a non-profit organisation with substantial benefits, especially freedom from many forms of taxation. In return all that's needed is to meet the requirements of the Charities Act 2011. Who regulates a charity is straightforward; if 'Exempt' you have an industry-specific regulator, if tiny (earning under £5,000 a year) you regulate yourself. Everyone else should register with the Charity Commission, unless you're an 'Excepted' charity. Excepted? It's a strange concept, created by a piece of legislation called the Charities (Exception from Registration) Regulations 1996 which allows certain types of religious charities to not comply with the requirements of the Charities Act. A law allowing privileged groups to ignore a law. The regulations allow charities looking after graves to be permanently excepted but also allowed named religious charities to be temporarily excepted, until 1st March 2001. The religious bodies in question were: The reason given for this law was to allow time for the charitable bodies involved to get ready for registration. Quite why only religious charities were expected to struggle to understand the process remains a mystery. Time moved on and the 1^st March 2001 approached. Are the religious charities now ready? Apparently not. A new regulation was passed, the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2001. The explanatory note on the regulation stated: "These Regulations extend the temporary exception presently granted to certain religious charities from the requirement to be registered under the Charities Act 1993. The temporary exception, which would have expired on 1st March 2001, is extended until 1st October 2002." No explanation as to who suggested the extension or who agreed to it. No justification or discussion on the pros and cons, just a new date. So eighteen more months to get ready. Time rolls by, are the charities ready? Apparently not as a new regulation is quietly passed, the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 extending the exception until 1st October 2007. Five more years to get ready. This filling in of a charity registration form must be very difficult for these Christian groups. What happened when the new date rolled around? You guessed it, the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 extended the exception for five more years, to 1^st October 2012. The form must be really, really complicated! Then in 2012 (here we go again) we see the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 which extended the exception to the 31st March 2014. Only two years more this time so that must be it, surely? No of course not, for now here is the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 which extends the exception once again, only this time for SEVEN years, until 31st March 2021. A temporary exception law made in 1996 to excuse religious bodies from obeying the law has now been extended five times for a total of twenty five years. A more detailed Explanatory Memorandum was produced this time to explain the decision but the conclusions are not wholly convincing. From the note: "The review report, 'Trusted and Independent: Giving charity back to charities', included a recommendation (chapter 5, recommendation 9) that the exception should end in stages over a period of three years". Yet the author explains Cabinet Office thinking to support extending again: "The main concern is that to do so will impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on up to 26,000 small religious charities at a time when many of them may be under pressure." So a Charity Act passed by parliament, reviewed and updated regularly is too large a burden for a religious charity, as decided not by the Charity Commission but by the Cabinet Office? What proof was gathered that this is the case? Who lobbied for the extension? Apparently the 'representative bodies' of the affected churches were consulted; they being given a choice of scrapping the regulation, extending for five years or extending for seven. No points for guessing the outcome: The representative bodies unanimously preferred the seven year extension. Worryingly the memorandum's conclusion on Impact is dismissive: "10.1 There is expected to be no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies. "10.2 There is expected to be no impact on the public sector. "10.3 An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen." So excusing charities of your choice from registration has no downside. Strange that other government bodies disagree. In July 2012 the Trusted and Independent report on the Charities Act 2006 concluded: "5.53 The position of excepted charities arguably creates an imbalance. The regulatory requirements they are subject to have not kept pace with those applied by the Charity Commission as its role has developed from registrar to regulator". Even prior to this the report Private Action, Public Benefit - A Review of Charities and the Wider Not-For-Profit Sector from 2002 came to the same conclusion: "Exempt and excepted charities "7.89 In order to promote trust and confidence in the regulatory system as a whole it is important that all organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability requirements." It went even further, raising a concern the whole nature of Excepted charities may be illegal. "7.91 Exceptions are also regarded as offering privileged treatment to some charities and are open to the challenge of unfairness. In particular, the religious denominations with "excepted" status are all Christian. This is unlikely to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998." The regulation undermines the whole ethos of regulation for the charity sector. It is set in law without any public discussion or parliamentary oversight and only asks the affected bodies themselves whether they would like it to continue. Let's hope there isn't a Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 being prepared.