Newsline 3 June 2016

Newsline 3 June 2016

Not a member yet? If you believe that a secular Britain is our best chance to achieve true equality for all citizens then please join us today. Don't forget to buy your ticket for our upcoming conference!

News, Blogs & Opinion

Discriminatory faith school bus policy “under review”

News | Tue, 31st May 2016

The National Secular Society (NSS) has welcomed news from Telford and Wrekin Council that its discriminatory school transport policy is being reconsidered.

The NSS called on the Council to review the policy in May after it was reported that the family of a 12-year-old boy were told that they could not use a taxpayer-subsidised bus, as it was only for church-going pupils.

In addition to its statutory obligations to assist pupils from low-income families, the Council provides discretionary assistance to pupils attending faith schools provided they are baptised Catholics or their families are "faithful and regular worshippers" in a Church of England Parish Church or other Christian affiliated churches

The pupil, who attends Holy Trinity, a state funded multi-faith academy, was told he would have to use public transport to get to school, whilst pupils from Christian backgrounds use transport provided by the Council.

The pupil's father said "The bus stops two minutes from the front door" but that his son "was told because he's not Catholic, even though he goes to the school, he can't use it."

In a response to the NSS, the Council said the home to school transport policy was "under review" and will soon go out to consultation.

The Council's assistant director responsible for education told the NSS that he hoped to "identify a solution which addresses both your anxieties and those of the residents of Telford and Wrekin."

Telford and Wrekin council said that their current policy "does contain provisions for secondary school age pupils to receive transport on the grounds of faith or religion to their nearest faith school where this is more than 3 miles from the pupil's home address and there is a similar provision in place for primary school aged pupils who are over 2 miles from their nearest faith school."

They added that the comments and analysis of the NSS would be made available to council officers responsible for the review.

Stephen Evans, the campaigns director of the National Secular Society, said the review was a good opportunity for the Council to reconsider whether it should be providing discretionary assistance to parents choosing more distant faith schools on religious grounds.

"By subsiding the choice of religious parents who opt to send their child to faith-based schools, the council is not only acting in a discriminatory way, it's also actively encouraging the division of pupils along religious lines.

"Instead, we'd like to see all local authorities promoting inclusivity and operating equitable school transport policies, free from religious favouritism and fair for families and taxpayers alike."

NSS criticises council proposal to expand faith school provision

News | Fri, 3rd Jun 2016

The National Secular Society has called on Milton Keynes Council to rethink plans to meet increasing demand for school places by significantly expanding faith school provision.

Under the Council's proposal, St Mary's – a tiny church school with "a distinctive Christian ethos" – would be relocated and expanded to serve 2,700 homes on a new housing development.

Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns Director, said: "Given Britain's rapidly changing religion and belief landscape it's hard to see how a Christian faith school would meet the needs and wishes of families moving to the area.

"It should be possible for local parents to have their children educated at their local school without other people's religion being foisted upon them.

"Building a new inclusive school without a religious designation is the only sensible option if Milton Keynes Council wants to ensure that its future educational provision is appropriate and equally welcoming and respectful to all children and families, irrespective of their religious outlook."

According to the school's latest Anglican inspection report, the "Christian foundation of the school permeates all aspects of school life". All children at St Mary's take part in daily Christian worship.

The Council argue that the plan to expand and relocate St Mary's "will provide further choice and diversity in the local community". However, in September 2015 the church school admitted just 2 pupils living in its catchment into the reception year group, suggesting minimal demand for church school provision in the area.

According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, parents of school children are some of the least religious sections of society. 60% of 35-44 year olds describe themselves as non-religious with a further 11% describing themselves as religious but non-practising.

The 2011 Census shows that those in Milton Keynes in this age range are 4-5% points less Christian and more non-religious than national figures for England.

In its response to the Council's consultation the NSS argued that the character of new school should be established with these trends in mind.

The NSS also criticised the council for prejudicing the outcome of the consultation on the provision for a new primary school in favour of expanding church school provision.

The consultation failed to give equal weight to an alternative option of building a new school and running a national competition to determine who will run it – describing the option to expand the Christian faith school as the "sensible" option.

Mr Evans added: "The apparent lack of even-handedness regarding these proposals is startling. The Council has failed to explain why it favours the expansion of an unpopular church school over the possibility of creating a new school that promotes commonly shared societal, rather than religion-specific values.

"Under the council's plans many parents could be left with little option other than to send their child to a school with a religious character that runs counter to their own beliefs. This clearly isn't acceptable."

European Commission announces online crackdown on “hate speech”

News | Thu, 2nd Jun 2016

Tech companies including Facebook and Twitter have signed up to a new European Commission plan designed to clampdown on online "hate speech."

But the National Secular Society has warned that the plans rest on a vague definition of 'hate speech' and risk threatening online discussions which criticise religion.

Under the agreement, social media companies will have to "expeditiously" review "hate speech" online when it is reported.

The new "code of conduct" was announced on the Commission's website, and YouTube, Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook have all agreed to join the EU's effort against "illegal hate speech".

The EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality Vĕra Jourová claimed that "The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech."

She said that the agreement would tackle terrorists' use of social media to "radicalise young people" and "spread violence and hatred."

However the agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organisations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers of Facebook censoring "atheist, secular and Ex-Muslim content" after false "mass reporting" by "cyber Jihadists."

They have asked their supporters to report details and evidence of any instances of pages and groups being "banned [or] suspended from Facebook for criticizing Islam and Islamism".

NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said: "Far from tackling online 'cyber jihad', the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under vague 'hate speech' rules. Poorly-trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is 'hate speech', particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists."

The EU Commission defines hate speech as "public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin."

It also includes "racism" and "xenophobia".

The EU says Member States "may sanction or prevent" content that contains "serious incitement to violence and hatred".

Mr Jones added: "When these restriction are being enforced by Facebook and Twitter staff, what hope is there that it will be done impartially? They are private companies, but they also have immense power over our public debates. This is a worrying development – however well-intentioned.

"Incitement to violence and incitement to 'hatred' are very different things."

The agreement has been criticised by Index on Censorship. The group said that "Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what 'illegal hate speech' is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression."

Faith in public services?

Opinion | Thu, 2nd Jun 2016

An increased role for religious organisations in the provision of public services would be disastrous for both the public and faith sectors, argues Alastair Lichten.

The Oasis Foundation recently launched a report arguing that the aspirations of the 'Big Society' have not been met. The report correctly points out that the third sector lacks the capacity to take over core public services and that local authorities have concerns over outsourcing services to certain groups, including faith-based groups.

Christian commentators are often keen to document the contribution of religious organisations to the third sector and social activism, but they always fail to demonstrate why it should be the state's role to build this capacity or why local authorities shouldn't have legitimate concerns about religious groups running services.

A few weeks ago prominent Christian MPs in the House of Commons spent almost two hours in an "incredibly important" debate, agreeing that faith groups do a lot of good in communities, and that any reticence by local authorities to have more religious groups running services is just 'fear', 'aggressive secularism' and 'religious illiteracy'.

Every time that religious privilege is in some way undermined (or even if the Government is not sufficiently gushing in its praise of the 'faith sector') we hear apocalyptic predictions from religious leaders that all the volunteering and social action done by faith groups is going to somehow disappear. I imagine this sort of privileged moaning is particularly insulting to many people of faith.

The strawman of 'aggressive secularism' and moral panic over 'religious illiteracy' do little to aid clear thinking or address the concerns of people of all faiths and none have about the future of public and third sector service provision.

Best practice for third sector organisations interacting with and supporting the public is usually marked by four characteristics:

Those advocating for faith organisations taking over more public services risk undermining these restrictions, which exist to protect both the public and third sectors.

Some would have you believe that they are simple asking for the poor, put upon faith sector to be treated like the rest of the third sector, for there to be a free market with a diverse range of groups. But too often what is being advocated is a biased market, where faith groups are privileged and the secular and public nature of public services are undermined.

1. The organisation provides a supplementary rather than core service.

Of course our secular public services have always been supplemented by voluntary and third sector groups many of whom have a faith basis. Macmillan nurses funded by donations are a lifeline to many cancer patients. But it wouldn't be possible or desirable for Macmillan to take over the NHS. Residents of a rural village may welcome a Church group opening a community library but be understandably concerned about their public library being closed and moved to a church hall.

According to Oasis's own polling 55% of people had little or no confidence in Church groups running "Crucial social provisions such as education" only 6% had a lot of confidence. 65% had no confidence in Church groups running "Crucial social provisions such as healthcare" with only 2% of people expressing a lot of confidence. Move on to more supplementary services and confidence in Church groups grows with 64% having a lot or a little confidence and only 7% no confidence at all.

2. The organisation is run in and provides a service in a non-discriminatory manner.

In Southampton £1m has been cut from the children's services budget and £60,000 handed over to a Christian organisation to 'help struggling families'. Safe Families for Children's online donation form doesn't ask what Church you're from. But their volunteer forms all do.

Want to support this innovative co-operation between the public and faith sector, why not apply to be a Programme Director or a Regional Operations Director? You may be delivering a public service and receiving public money, but I'm afraid you will need to be a Christian. Naturally, this discriminatory requirement would be unlawful in a local authority or secular charity.

Safe Families for Children's may provide a valuable service and if they weren't publicly funded or they followed the four principles I'd have no secular objection. In a free society a private group should be free to organise for the benefit of its own members and to ensure its doctrinal purity. But when public money is involved surely we're right to expect the services they fund to be non-discriminatory?

Many religious groups do provide services without discrimination. Not all religious groups go out of their way to create a 'Genuine Occupational Requirement' to restrict jobs based on religion. But some do and this is a legitimate concern. If religious providers are to be treated like any other provider then we stop the a priori assumption that religious = good and that religious discrimination is justified or 'not really a problem'. And we should end the religious privilege of overly broad Equality Act exemptions.

These exemptions are not fit for the modern third sector and reflect an outdated view of an amateurish sector made up of mainly volunteers. Theos, Oasis and other 'big society' advocates seem to want a modern, well-resourced third sector. But with the faith section of the sector enjoying all of the benefits of professionalization and few of the restrictions.

3. The organisation does not use the opportunity of providing the service to advance a partisan or ideological agenda.

On the one hand the religious service advocates argue that proselytization isn't really a problem and service commissioners don't need to be at all suspicious. On the other hand they argue that religious groups should be given more room to use public services to proselytize – and that service commissioners still shouldn't be suspicious.

Luckily (outside of education) direct proselytization by religious groups running public services is rare – usually a case of an overzealous individual rather than an organisational ethos. When an ideologically driven group runs a public service, appropriate and proportionate steps should be taken to ensure that agenda doesn't affect the service.

If the contracts of religious providers of publicly-funded services included unambiguous equality, non-discrimination and non- proselytising clauses in them, perhaps the public would have more confidence in religious organisations delivering services. It would also ensure religious volunteers could be clear about appropriate boundaries.

4. The relationship between the public service and the third sector organisation is open to scrutiny.

During that recent debate on the 'faith sector', Fiona Bruce and others called for local authorities to have religious advisors and give special attention to the faith sector. A call since taken up by the Church Times. Apparently, religious groups' capacity is so good that they should run more public services, and their capacity is so poor that the state should give them special support to build it.

We're also told that religious groups should be treated 'just like any other group wishing to provide services' but at the same time they should have 'special advocates' and never have their "motives" questioned.

Devon and Cornwall Police recently advertised for a faith co-ordinator. Not a third sector outreach co-ordinator to work with community groups of all types. No. A religious enthusiast to help build up faith groups and help them win funding bids – all at public expense. One such organisation specially highlighted in the role has been accused of incorrectly applying a Genuine Occupational Requirement to restrict a full time role to a Christian. HMRC are looking into the same job advert over possible breaches of minimum wage legislation.

Given historical problems of discrimination in the police, recruiting a faith co-ordinator can seem like an easy, tokenistic gesture. But minority faith communities continue to be let down by such an approach that assumes self-appointed 'community leaders' have the capacity or legitimacy to represent an entire community.

If you want to see secularism in action think about your last trip to an NHS hospital. While sharing the frustrations of a waiting room you probably sat next to fellow citizens of all backgrounds, faiths and beliefs. Our secular NHS treats them simply as patients, irrespective of their beliefs. Perhaps your doctor was motivated to become a doctor by their faith or belief, but our secular NHS means that their personal beliefs didn't help or hinder them to get where they are and that their faith in no way interferes with the way you're treated. And this is precisely the way it should be when public services are being delivered.

Headscarves and other religious, philosophical and political symbols can be banned at work, says European Court of Justice

News | Tue, 31st May 2016

A general workplace ban on religious, philosophical and political symbols, including headscarves, is not discriminatory against Muslim women, a European Court of Justice (ECJ) judge has said.

Such a ban could be "justified in order to enforce a policy of religious and ideological neutrality," the ECJ advocate general decided, in a non-binding opinion issued on a Belgian case referred to the court.

The senior Court of Justice lawyer found that "The fact that a female employee of Muslim faith is prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf at work does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion".

The case concerned a Muslim receptionist in Belgium, Samira Achbita, who was fired from UK-owned G4S after she started coming to work with a headscarf in defiance of company policy.

The European court advised that the Belgian court "must" take into account the country's "national identity", as well as "the size and conspicuousness of the religious symbol" when reaching a final verdict. A final ruling will not come until later this year.

The advocate general of the ECJ explained that "the legal issues surrounding the Islamic headscarf are symbolic of the more fundamental question of how much difference and diversity an open and pluralistic European society must tolerate within its borders and, conversely, how much assimilation it is permitted to require from certain minorities."

Under company policy G4S employees were "not permitted to wear any religious, political or philosophical symbols while on duty."

The ECJ lawyer's opinion said that after working for G4S for three years without wearing a headscarf in working hours, the complainant "announced that, in future, she intended to wear a headscarf during working hours as well, for religious reasons. The company management pointed out that this was at odds with the neutrality sought by G4S."

After insisting on wearing a headscarf in defiance of company policy, she was subsequently dismissed and then brought a claim of discrimination against her employer.

In their opinion, the advocate general said that a headscarf ban would not necessarily make it "unduly difficult for Muslim women to integrate into work and society."

"Ms Achbita's case in particular makes this readily apparent. Ms Achbita worked as a receptionist for G4S for approximately three years without wearing an Islamic headscarf at work and was thus fully integrated into working life as a Muslim woman, despite the headscarf ban. It was not until after more than three years of working for G4S that she insisted on being allowed to come to work in a headscarf and, as a result, lost her job."

The case was referred to the ECJ by a Belgian court following nearly a decade of legal wrangling.

An earlier ruling from the Belgian Labour Court dismissed Achbita's claim, and it was also dismissed on appeal.

The Advocate General's opinion in the case can be read here.

NSS Speaks Out

We were quoted on the European Commission's new 'hate speech' social media code in several Breitbart articles, by the Mirror, and by the Gatestone Institute.

Our Executive Director Keith Porteous Wood spoke to Talk Radio about the ECJ advocate general's opinion on workplace neutrality and to LBC about the construction of a new eruv.

NSS President Terry Sanderson had a letter published in the Evening Standard in defence of secularism.