Newsline 25 April 2014

Newsline 25 April 2014

Newsline is a weekly round-up of news and opinion from the NSS website. If you're not already a member, becoming one is the most tangible way of supporting our work. Our campaigning is wholly supported by our members, people like you who share our belief that secularism is an essential element in promoting equality between all citizens. Please join today.

News, Blogs & Opinion

NSS welcomes Lib Dem leader’s calls for separation of church and state

News | Thu, 24th Apr 2014

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has called for the "eventual" disestablishment of the Church of England.

Speaking on his weekly phone-in on LBC radio he said, in response to a caller:

"My personal view ... is in the long run having the state and the church basically bound up with each other, as we do in this country - in the long run it would be better for the church, and better for people of faith, and better for Anglicans, if the church and the state were over time to stand on their own two separate feet. But that's not going to happen overnight for sure."

Asked about his views on Mr Cameron's assertion that Britain is a Christian country, he said:

'As it happens, I'm not a man of faith, but I don't actually find it particularly controversial to say just look at our history, our heritage, our architecture, our values, or something… of course, you know, of course it's infused by Christianity. In many ways I was slightly nonplussed by people getting very worked up about because I thought, well, you know, I'm not a practising man of faith but I don't find it an issue to say, you know, we have an important, sort of, Christian identity in terms of our history and heritage and so on.

'That is not to say, Paul [the listener calling in], which I think is maybe what lies behind your question, that somehow we are exclusively Christian, that somehow everybody is a Christian, or indeed that we have got one Christian denomination, there are almost as many Catholics as Anglicans in this country, and of course we should remember that one of the greatest Christian values, if you want to put it that way, of tolerance is that we are open to people of other denominations, other faiths, of all faiths, and none and I think that is what makes our country, it's this sense of fair play and tolerance which I think makes our country very, very special.

'I mean, more generally speaking, er, about the separation of religion and politics, as it happens, my personal view, I'm not pretending this is something which is discussed in the pubs and kitchen tables of Britain but my personal view is in the long run, having the state and the church basically bound up with each other as we do in this country, I think, you know, I think in the long-run it would actually be better for the church and better for people of faith and better for Anglicans if the church and state were over time to sort of stand on their own two separate feet, so to speak.'

When asked about Mr Clegg's comments on disestablishment, Prime Minister David Cameron disagreed. He said:

'No I don't want to see that, I think our arrangements work well in this country. As I've said before, we're a Christian country, we have an established church, and being a Christian country, I find other faith leaders and members of other faiths say that it makes us almost more understanding, more tolerant, more understanding of the role that faith and religion plays in our country.

'And actually, faith organisations do an enormous amount in terms of supporting schools, supporting charities, helping to build what I call the bigger society. So I don't want to see what the Deputy Prime Minister has set out, it's a long-term liberal idea but not a Conservative one.'

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "At last, we have a high profile politician have the courage to say that separating church and state would be a good idea. None of the others dare say it, although it is quite clear that the time has come to do it. Mr Cameron, has now made clear that he has no intention of making any changes, but he and his newly-discovered piety won't be there for ever. "

Story updated 6.50pm 24 April 2014

Christian Legal Centre brings a familiar tactic to bear on religious discrimination case

News | Wed, 23rd Apr 2014

The Christian Legal Centre (CLC) is launching yet another attempt to gain privileges for Christians in the workplace – and calling on David Cameron to put his supposed "evangelical Christianity" into action over the case.

The latest case revolves round a Christian woman, Sarah Mbuyi, who worked at Newpark Childcare in Highbury, North London. She is claiming that she suffered religious discrimination after being dismissed from her job.

Ms Mbuyi, an enthusiastically evangelical Christian, was fond of talking about her faith at work. Eventually – according to the account provided by the Christian Legal Centre - she came into conflict with a lesbian colleague over the issue of what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Miss Mbuyi said: "When I said no God does not condone the practice of homosexuality, but does love you and says you should come to Him as you are, she became emotional and went off to report me to my manager."

According to the CLC, at an internal disciplinary hearing, Ms Mbuyi was confronted with her colleague's allegations and was asked if she would read a story to the children at the nursery which featured same sex couples. Ms Mbuyi said she would have to refuse to do this.

The account of events provided by the CLC and Ms Mbuyi were reported with no balancing comments by the Press Association and were carried uncritically in the Telegraph, the Guardian and on the website of Day Nurseries UK.

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "This case appears to be following a very familiar pattern. The Christian Legal Centre puts out its completely one-sided version of what happened, safe in the knowledge that the other parties involved will not be able to contradict it because employers are constrained by confidentiality until it comes to court.

"Consequently, the Christian Legal Centre's version is accepted as correct and becomes part of the Christians-are-being-persecuted narrative. When the issue reaches the employment tribunal or court, a very different account of events usually emerges, resulting in the case being thrown out. This element is always largely ignored by the press.

"Almost all the cases brought by the Christian Legal Centre have failed because the claims of discrimination just did not stand up under examination. But the tactic of rushing out a partisan version of events, and having it reported uncritically by a compliant press, ensures that the perception is created of Christians being unfairly treated and discriminated against at work."

Andrea Williams, barrister and chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, as usual used the case to call for Christian privilege. She said: "Sharing Biblical truths out of genuine love and concern for colleagues is being outlawed in the workplace by a dominating cultural correctness. There is a culture of fear which closes down freedom of speech and the manifestation of faith. This culture brands the liberating good news of the Gospel as oppressive and regressive.

"Sarah's case demonstrates the confusion we're experiencing in current times. David Cameron has given public recognition of the enormous positive impact that Jesus Christ has had on our nation but he wants to mould Christianity to his political agenda. History shows that Christianity is greater than any political agenda."

She added: "The Prime Minister has huge influence. If he is serious in his support for Christianity, he will intervene in Sarah's case and ensure that those who believe in marriage, as defined in the bible, between one man and one woman, will not lose their jobs but be wholly and properly protected by the law."

Terry Sanderson commented: "Andrea Williams is a chief architect of this dishonest and manipulative campaign to gain privilege for Christians at work. Her propaganda skills are very impressive – but her dissembling is not. If David Cameron were to intervene in this legal process to give Christians special rights at work that are not enjoyed by others, it would set a very dangerous precedent."

Church of England School refuses parish council appeal to change faith-based admissions criteria

News | Thu, 24th Apr 2014

A Church of England school near Sevenoaks, Kent has refused an appeal by the local parish council to end discrimination against non-churchgoers.

In a letter to the Chair of Governors at Chevening CE Primary School, Howard Dilley, chair of Chevening Parish Council, called on the school to reverse the discriminatory element of its admissions policy in order to create a "more cohesive community" in the parish.

The letter followed concern amongst local residents that children were unable to attend their local school.

The school's admissions currently prioritise children of regular attendees of the local St Botolph's Church and other Christian churches, above other children who live near to the school.

Chairman of governors, the Reverend Chris Smith, defended their decision not to reverse the admissions policy, saying: "Most years anyone from the village who wants their child to come to Chevening School will succeed".

Rev Smith also stressed that the school regarded itself as a "church school" over and above being a "village school". He said prioritising 'distance' above 'children from other churches' would affect the school's ability to market itself as a faith school.

"The school's church ethos is not only at the core of what the school is but it is also what distinguishes us from other schools and attracts many families", said Rev Smith.

Rev Smith also questioned whether local families really wanted to attend the school, pointing out that a large majority (77%) of parish families did not choose to send their children to the school.

Responding to the refusal to change the policy Mr Dilley suggested that the school drop 'Chevening' from the school name to make clear that it was primarily a church school rather than a village school and integral part of the community.

In 2013 Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said: "We are seeing a deeper and deeper commitment to the common good" at church schools, which he said were "moving away from faith-based entry tests." His comments were quickly reversed in a statement from Lambeth Palace in which he said: "I fully support the current policy for schools to set their own admissions criteria, including the criterion of faith."

Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, said: "For some parents the local school will be the most appropriate school for their needs. It is unjustifiable that any publicly funded schools are permitted to discriminate against children simply on the basis of their parents not attending church. Discrimination on grounds of religion and belief should be as unlawful in our education system as it is in all other areas of life."

The full correspondence between the council and church school can be read here

Local campaign forces church U-turn over Chancel Repair Liability

News | Fri, 25th Apr 2014

A parochial church council (PCC) that used an ancient law to make homeowners financially liable for repairs to their local church has withdrawn its claim.

Villagers in Stottesdon, near Kidderminster, reacted with dismay when they received notices from the Land Registry informing them claims against their properties had been made by their local church.

The PCC has now backtracked following a local campaign which threatened to boycott the Church. A statement issued by the Diocese of Hereford, stated:

"This PCC has listened to the concerns of parishioners and discussed at length the issue of Chancel Repair Liability. Following careful review and consideration of all material facts the PCC now wishes to withdraw the unilateral notices and the cautions against first registrations lodged with The Land Registry."

Commenting on the decision to withdraw the claims, Colin Resch, the vicar of St Mary's Church, said: "The consequences of Chancel Repair Liability in our parish have made it very difficult for us to carry out our prime objective of sharing God's love within our community."

The diocesan press statement, entitled, "Church decision brings hope to divided village", omitted to mention that it was the actions of the PCC that caused the resentment in the first place.

The removal of the registrations means that when houses are sold on the repair liability will not transfer with the ownership, and new householders will not have to pay it. Until that time, the properties are still potentially subject to CLR.

Elaine Hesssion, who set up the local campaign with her partner Jonathan Hill, welcomed the U-turn. She said: "The decision to withdraw Chancel Repair Liability Notices registered against properties in Stottesdon was the morally right one and very good news to the community. Whilst this is certainly a step in the right direction the legal position is that the current PCC or a future PCC can re-register these Notices at any time and then we are back to square one. Those property owners affected would like a deed of relinquishment from the PCC stating that they will never pursue us for chancel repair liability and hopefully this will restore the value to our properties. Maybe then we can all put this behind us and unite once more as a community."

Ms Hession Facebook campaign group is now assisting homeowners in other areas affected by chancel repair liability.

The withdrawal of the registrations was also welcomed by the National Secular Society (NSS), which is campaigning for Chancel Repair Liability to be abolished.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the NSS, said. "We acknowledge the contribution to our heritage of ancient churches, but it is completely unfair that money for repairing them can be demanded from property owners simply because of what the Law Commission describes as "anomalous, uncertain and obscure" law.

"Chancel Repair Liabilities have caused a substantial reduction in value and even saleability of the properties registered. Until the law is abolished the Church needs to try much harder to permit property owners to buy out their liabilities at affordable rates."

The law of Chancel Repair Liability dates back to the time of Henry VIII but had been little exercised for centuries until, in 2009, Adrian and Gail Wallbank were forced to sell their home after losing a protracted legal battle over a demand for almost £100,000 to fund repairs of their local medieval church at Aston Cantlow in Warwickshire.

Following the Wallbanks' case, the Government introduced a registration procedure enabling CRL to be shown on Land Registry documents. Around 12,000 registrations have been made by 250 parishes. Another 5,000 parishes that are eligible to do so, have not registered any claims. Further properties are potentially subject to CRL, despite being not being registered.

Since the Wallbanks' case, many vendors have taken out insurance against purchasers' future liability. The option of relatively inexpensive insurance is not open to owners of properties that have been registered – many of which were purchased before the Wallbank case, without CLR appearing on the deeds.

A petition urging the Secretary of State for Justice Chris Grayling to abolish chancel repair liability can be signed at Change.org.

The campaign group set up my Elaine Hession can be contacted via Facebook.

The debate over David Cameron’s call to Christianity has taken a wrong turn

Opinion | Tue, 22nd Apr 2014

Terry Sanderson argues that the debate over David Cameron's assertions that the UK is a "Christian Nation" has led away from the important question of whether it should be.

The controversy over David Cameron's Christian chauvinism and the reaction it has prompted is interesting and frightening at the same time.

It is unfortunate that the debate has turned into "Is Britain a Christian country?" because it opened the doors for those Christians who don't understand secularism (or who prefer to misrepresent it) to turn the whole thing into an attack on their personal faith.

The question we really need to ask is "Would Britain be a safer and fairer place if it had a secular constitution?"

Naturally if you have privileges that you have enjoyed for hundreds of years, the knee-jerk answer will be "no".

But those more thoughtful Christians such as Canon Giles Fraser, realise that there are dangers in a Prime Minister nailing his government's colours to the mast of a particular religion.

Mr Fraser told The Times that Mr Cameron had made a "dangerous" intervention.

"This country has a significant Christian past," he said. "It has a significant non-Christian past and I think they all have to be honoured. One of the things that's dangerous about David Cameron's rhetoric is the way in which that can be picked up as being exclusive. When politicians start using that phrase, I'm always a little bit suspicious about what they're trying to do with it . . . It can be quite a shrill thing to say within the political world. I just think people need to be quite careful about that language. It can be slightly dog-whistle politics."

Let's be clear at once that we have no problem with Mr Cameron wearing his personal religion on his sleeve. Just so long as he is not intending to use his position as leader of the nation to give Christianity a special voice in policy-making that will affect us all, religious and non-religious, Christian and non-Christian, then that's fine.

But from his recent statements it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he does intend to privilege Christianity.

He intends to become "evangelical" about it.

And while some "faith leaders" from the Muslim, Sikh, Jewish and Hindu communities have come out to support Mr Cameron's stance, there will be others who will be feeling very uneasy about where this is leading.

Of course, it could be that Mr Cameron is simply electioneering. Trying to out-holy UKIP's Nigel Farage or trying to bring the churches back on board after his spat with them over gay marriage.

If that is the case, then religious leaders would be well advised to call Mr Cameron's cynicism what it is – political opportunism of the basest kind.

But if he really means it, then we are on sticky ground.

Some religious adherents have very short fuses. Some of them will resort to violence when they are thwarted, they will tell you quite plainly that they are prepared to die for their religion.

With those levels of fanaticism at large in our nation, it is quite wrong – and yes, dangerous - for the Prime Minister to tell us all that Christianity rules.

I have been doing radio interviews about the issue this week and have heard representatives of the Church of England telling me that Christianity has formed our laws, brought social justice to our land, been responsible for the introduction of human rights – in fact, all things good that have happened in our green and pleasant land are the product of Christianity.

Of course, it requires a wholesale rewriting of history to make these claims stand up.

The Church of England has been grotesquely oppressive and cruel in its time. It has been responsible for the introduction of laws that created misery for untold numbers of people. It forbade divorce, it made contraception illegal, it restricted women's access to abortion, it outlawed homosexuality and even stood in the way of cremation as an alternative to burial (the body must be intact, you see, for the Day of Judgment). Even suicide was illegal because the church said it was un-Christian.

All this was swept away as the Church lost its power. One after another Bible-based laws have been repealed. New laws are formulated on the secular principal of reason, fact and compassion.

And as for human rights – one of the first campaigns I was involved in when I joined the NSS was to stop the churches exempting themselves from the Human Rights Act as it was introduced into parliament. Such is the "faith leaders" commitment to human rights that they didn't want to observe them.

Secularism is the answer. It will not interfere with the rights of religious people to observe their religion. Indeed, it will protect them.

But it will interfere with their tendency to want to impose their faith on the unwilling. (Just as Mr Cameron is doing at the moment).

So – is Britain a Christian country? Constitutionally – yes (in a sectarian way); culturally – yes (but in a diminishing way); in the hearts of its people – if opinion polls are to be believed, no.

It doesn't matter what people believe, what matters is that this should be a country with a secular constitution that respects and protects everyone's belief and non-belief equally.

Secular lawyers question Law Society about guidance on sharia-compliant wills

News | Thu, 24th Apr 2014

A group of lawyers concerned by the publication of a practice note on Sharia succession rules by the Law Society have written to the Society outlining their concerns.

The Lawyers' Secular Society (LSS) wrote the letter in order to highlight the real problems it sees in connection with the Law Society's practice note on Sharia compliant wills, and to get clarification on some points that came out of previous correspondence with the Law Society on the issue.

In its letter, the LSS notes that whilst it does not dispute the concept of testamentary freedom under English law, it sees as quite different the Law Society's offering of guidance on drafting wills which give effect to a set of rules "avowedly discriminating on the grounds of gender and religion". Disputing the relevance of whether these rules are religious in origin, and arguing that what matters is the effect of such rules, not their provenance, the LSS observes that this practice note on Sharia is as inappropriate as it would be if the Law Society were to publish guidance on writing racist or homophobic wills.

In its previous correspondence with the LSS, the Law Society noted that the Society is not subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). In its recent letter however, the LSS queries the appropriateness of a regulatory body issuing specific guidance on how to comply with a body of rules which are fundamentally discriminatory. It asked the Law Society whether it not being subject to the PSED, means that it "does not in any event consider it necessary or appropriate for it to have due regard to the need to avoid discrimination and promote equality of opportunity".

The LSS letter also points to the reference in the practice note to a textbook, Inheritance – Regulations & Exhortations, by Muhammed Al Jibaly, whilst noting a number of things Mr Al Jibaly is on record as saying. For example, that adulterers should be stoned to death, that girls should start wearing the hijab at seven – and that they should be beaten if they refuse to do so by the age of ten - and that Muslim parents should discourage their children from mixing with "the kuffar".

The LSS concedes that the Law Society cannot be expected to know about all that is said by authors it references, but asks whether the Law Society had undertaken a reasonable amount of due diligence before choosing to promote Mr Al Jibaly's book.

Secretary of the LSS, Charlie Klendjian, has warned against the Law Society's implicit legitimisation of Sharia as a form of inheritance rules through the publication of its practice note, saying that "the Law Society is legitimising, normalising and sanitising – or at the very least being seen to legitimise, normalise and sanitise – the distribution of an estate in accordance with the fundamentally discriminatory provisions of Sharia law".

You can read the LSS's letter in full here.

A public protect against the Law Society's guidance will take place on Monday 28 April.

NSS Speaks Out

Terry Sanderson was quoted on the front page lead story in the Independent on David Cameron's remarks about Britain being a Christian country and also the BBC website. He was also interviewed on BBC 3 counties and BBC Coventry and Warwickshire. Keith Porteous Wood was on Radio Lincoln.

Campaigns manager Stephen Evans was on BBC Radio 5 Live talking about the human rights implications after non-Sikh parents objected to their children being allocated places at a Sikh "faith school". He was also on the BBC Asian Network on the same topic and BBBC Radio Berkshire.

Wales online picked up our comments about a headteacher whose contract had been withdrawn for a job in a Catholic 'faith school' because of his "marital situation".