Newsline 5 February 2016

Newsline 5 February 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.

News, Blogs & Opinion

‘Catholics-only’ school bus policy to be reviewed

News | Tue, 2nd Feb 2016

The National Secular Society has welcomed news that a 'discriminatory' school bus policy, which gives Catholic pupils free travel but makes non-Catholics pay, is to be reviewed by Flintshire Council.

Pupils at the St Richard Gwyn Catholic High School in Flint are currently given a free bus pass if they live over three miles away from the school. However the pass is only given to Catholic pupils, and non-Catholic children are made to pay for the bus or use other more expensive travel options.

To receive the pass pupils are expected to provide "suitable evidence of adherence to the faith of the school such as a baptismal certificate or a letter from a priest".

The bus is run by the Council and the school's headteacher has now said that the policy should be changed. He told the BBC that he wished "they would scrap it."

One parent said it was blatant discrimination and that pupils "stand at the same bus stop [and] wear the same uniform" but some are made to use "non-Catholic" school-run minibuses, which are more expensive, or pay £55 for the service that Catholic pupils can access for free.

The division in the school caused by the scheme has seen the bus labelled the "Catholic bus" by pupils and parents.

Flintshire Council said that all of their "discretionary transport provision and policies are currently subject to a review." A consultation on the proposals prior to it being introduced in 2013 saw 85% of 638 respondents strongly disagreeing with the plans.

The National Secular Society previously warned Flintshire against adopting such a discriminatory policy and said it was very pleased to learn it is to now be reviewed.

NSS campaigns manager, Stephen Evans, commented: "Once children have been accepted into a school it's reasonable to expect that any assistance they receive for transport arrangements to and from that school are equitable and non-discriminatory. It is absolutely wrong that children are being treated differently purely on the basis of their or their parents' religious beliefs or activities."

The NSS has again written to the council urging it to amend the policy to remove the distinction between pupils of Catholic and non-Catholic faith.

School transport arrangements have a special exemption from Equality Act provisions prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.

The publicly-funded St Richard Gwyn Catholic High School also prioritises both children from Catholic and other faith backgrounds over children of non-religious parents in its admissions arrangements.

UN calls on Ireland to recognise needs of non-Christian children in the education system

News | Thu, 4th Feb 2016

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has criticised Ireland in its periodic review, urging the country to protect the rights of non-religious and non-Christian children and families.

Strong criticism was made of the overwhelming religious control of Ireland's schools, and the Committee said that Ireland must improve access to non-religious schools. 97% of Irish primary schools are denominational schools.

It said Ireland must "Expeditiously undertake concrete measures to significantly increase the availability of non-denominational or multidenominational schools and to amend the existing legislative framework to eliminate discrimination in school admissions, including the Equal Status Act".

The report concluded that "Schools continuing to practise discriminatory admissions policies on the basis of the child's religion" and the Committee said it remained "concerned at the very small number of non-denominational schools."

The Committee also recommended that Ireland "ensure accessible options for children to opt-out of religious classes and access appropriate alternatives to such classes, in accordance with the needs of children of minority faith or non-faith backgrounds."

In its report, the Committee expressed its concern that "children are not [currently] ensured the right to effectively opt-out of religious classes and access appropriate alternatives to such classes."

Atheist Ireland, which campaigns for an "ethical, secular state", said their calls for a secular education system had been vindicated by the report.

The secularist group said that their representatives were "in Geneva in January when the UN Committee was questioning Ireland, and we highlighted the State's attempt to mislead the Committee about the Minister for Education's intentions to change the Equal Status Act."

Claims that the Irish government were to amend the Equal Status Act were false, Atheist Ireland warned. "Actually, the Minister and the Government have made clear that they will not be amending the Equal Status Act to remove the right of publicly funded religious schools to discriminate against children in access. The Government says they cannot do this without a referendum, as they say they have a constitutional obligation to buttress religious discrimination."

Birmingham Central Mosque leaders accused of downplaying domestic violence, forced marriage and extremism

News | Fri, 5th Feb 2016

Labour MP Khalid Mahmood has called on the embattled trustees of Birmingham Central Mosque to "consider their positions" after the mosque chairman was accused of dismissing concerns about domestic violence.

Muhammad Afzal, a Labour councillor and Chair of Birmingham Central Mosque, was forced to resign as Birmingham's Lord Mayor elect after audio recordings emerged of him calling Prime Minister David Cameron an "Islamophobe". He also called for a boycott of Prevent, the Government's counter-terrorism programme, and said that plans to introduce safeguarding measures for supplementary schools, including madrassas and yeshivas, were "racist".

He also denied that significant numbers of British Muslims were joining the Islamic State.

Afzal was recorded saying: "I think the Prime Minister is an Islamophobe, he never talks about anything else but Muslim extremism.

"It is ridiculous that the government is saying Muslims are becoming radicalised. David Cameron says 500 people have gone to Syria to become radicalised, but where is the evidence? And out of a population of three million Muslims in the UK, what kind of percentage is that?

"The government wants to inspect madrassas, which is racist. Ofsted are losing their neutrality and what we'll find is that madrassas will be closing down under this legislation which is totally ridiculous."

Shortly after he had resigned from his position as Lord Mayor elect, Afzal became embroiled in another controversy after the Muslim Women's Network (MWNUK) accused him of telling them that "forced marriage was no longer a problem" and claiming that more men than women were victims of domestic violence.

During a meeting Afzal reportedly asked the campaigners, "women these days are strong and educated, how can they be forced into marriage?"

Afzal denied the validity of official figures about the extent of forced marriage – particularly in the West Midlands. He reportedly said the figures were "exaggerated."

According to the MWNUK, he added that any event on forced marriage held with the mosque as a partner would "send a wrong message to the community that forced marriage was a problem when actually it is not."

When the discussion turned to domestic violence within Muslim communities, the MWNUK say that Afzal stated "domestic violence was happening mainly in the Christian community because they get drunk."

The campaigners said that Muslim women had been murdered as a result of domestic violence, with many cases in the West Midlands alone, but he denied hearing of any such cases – despite the mosque running a divorce service where "domestic violence is regularly raised as a reason for divorce," as MWNUK put it.

Khalid Mahmood MP has now argued that Birmingham Central Mosque can only say they are "not aware" of forced marriage and domestic violence "because of the fact that virtually all their committee members are men."

"There should be more women on the committee to highlight some of these issues," he added.

Campaigners are now lodging a complaint with the Charities Commission because the mosque has 39 male trustees and not a single female one.

The niqab in schools: An argument for prohibition

Opinion | Thu, 4th Feb 2016

Sadikur Rahman argues that the case for banning full face veils in schools extends far beyond whether or not they present a barrier to learning.

The niqab, or full-face veil, is once again in the news after the chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, told inspectors in England that they can fail schools for allowing face veils if they are proving to be a "barrier to learning". But the Government continues to take the view that when it comes to the niqab and religious head dress in general, it is best left to the individual school to decide.

A person is largely free to wear whatever they want in public, (except in certain public buildings), or in private. So I do not make an argument for banning the niqab in public.

There is however a very strong argument for the prohibition of the niqab, (the full face veil), from primary and secondary schools – and not only on communication grounds.

Although young women can choose to wear the niqab or hijab for many reasons, it cannot be denied that the primary reason is that they believe their religion requires it of them.

Clearly there are differences between various sects, traditions and the four schools of Sunni law, although much less than some might wish. It is generally accepted that hair, arms and legs should be covered with a gown which does not show the shape of the body, although there is disagreement about whether the face needs to be covered. Muslim reformers tend to argue that even hair covering is not required at all on the basis that the initial reason for the veil or, even segregation, was because it was not safe to be a Muslim woman amongst enemies. So given that this reasoning no longer applies, these items of dress are not required.

Whether by choice or the insistence of parents, any argument that seeks to prohibit the niqab will have to contend with the fact that it will be a potential breach of the right to religious freedom and freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention. This is a qualified right however, and such breaches can be allowed as long as any measures are proportionate, according to law and are in order to pursue a legitimate aim: The legitimate aim in this case being the protection of children.

One need only carry out a cursory Google search or do a little reading on whether the hijab or niqab is required for Muslim women to find a plethora of websites and advice saying that, yes, the hijab at least is a mandatory requirement although the niqab is not, and providing theological justifications as to why Allah requires women to cover their bodies in various ways. It is these justifications that should be of particular concern to schools, because they represent a very harmful image of women. (See here, here and here from 'Islamic FAQ' and 'Islamic Awareness'). For a more 'modern' interpretation, and claims that the niqab or hijab empowers women see here from 'Islamic Insights'.

But the opinion of the person wearing the veil or the Muslim scholar as to what these verses and hadiths mean does not mean that the rest of us have suspend our own logic or accept these arguments without scrutiny, particularly when it comes to protecting children.

A fair and objective reading of these verses and websites should have any self-respecting feminist or anyone interested in equality between men and women reaching for their placards and pens. It seems to me every verse and hadith represents the subjugation of women to a lesser status. The discussions relate to injunctions on women to dress in a certain way – the only directive to men is the fairly unobtrusive demand "to lower their gaze", whereas for women there are a plethora of injunctions and commands. At its most basic the requirements of these modesty codes concern only women and so are prima facie an unequal state of affairs; as men are not required to cover their hair - much less their entire body.

It is also clear that the main reason for these 'modesty' codes is so as not rouse the sexual interest or lust of men. Let's be clear what this means – women have to cover up so that men can avoid committing the sin of not lowering their gaze when a pretty woman walks past. It of course begs the question; if men were so dangerous and could not control their lust, perhaps it should be men who stay at home rather than restrict the freedom of women.

It also seems, contrary to those Muslims who think that somehow by covering up women will ensure men appreciate their other qualities rather than seeing them purely as a sexual object that this is exactly what modesty codes are doing.

The idea that a woman has to cover her "awrah" i.e. those parts of her body that are considered intimate, private and sexual parts (which for all schools of law extends to all parts of a woman's body expect the hands and face and for some the face as well) is in fact turning a woman's whole body into a sexual object which must be hidden. Moreover it must be hidden in public not for any real reason that benefits a woman but so that a man is not tempted to look at a pretty woman. There are often complaints that young children are sexualised too early through advertising, revealing clothes or free contraception, but this is doing exactly the same. The niqab/hijab is explicitly sexualising young children by saying that if their bodies are not covered up then they will automatically arouse the sexual interest of men. The complete misogyny is summed up by this quote from 'Islamic Awareness':

"As for the controversial part of the issue, we should think of it as a sign of Allah's mercy that He left some things open, so that there will be no hardship for people, and that they can make use of such things according to their own benefit. For example, if a woman is so beautiful to the extent that she attracts men's attention and her beauty tempts them, she would cover her face, as an aspect of preventing harm, even if it is agreed that niqab is not obligatory. On the other hand, some women may have some breathing or skin problems that they do not tolerate wearing face cover. Here, we realize that the difference of opinion in relation to niqab is really an aspect of Allah's mercy".

The hadiths and commentary make clear that for a woman to gain respect she must be covered up. Many reformers and young Muslim feminists see this as their tool of empowerment. By adhering to these prohibitions they argue that they have somehow gained their self-respect, forcing men to consider their brains over beauty or looks, and so in some way to treat them as an equal. The irony of course is that they have had to completely restrict their personal freedom in order to gain that 'respect'. As old school feminists might have said, if a woman has to change her behaviour in order to gain respect - that's no respect at all. The irony seems lost on all and is no different from the Mayor of Cologne recently suggesting that women need to change their behaviour to stop the attacks.

Finally, it can be seen that the primary focus of modesty codes, and face veils, their most explicit manifestation, is female sexuality. To be blunt, it's all about sex, from the need to cover a woman's 'sexual parts' in order to avoid lustful gazes, to having to cover up to gain respect so that men don't think of women as a sex object.

I do not doubt that many reforming Muslims do not see it in this way and eloquently and vehemently argue that covering is not required or if it was, it was only initially instituted for security or a safety reasons which no longer apply. However, it cannot be denied that the overwhelming majority of Muslim interpretation is of the former variety and some go so far as to insist on the niqab.

So whether one likes it or not when someone chooses to wear the hijab or niqab and for whatever immediate reason, one is nevertheless buying into these deeply discriminatory, sexist and misogynistic views.

Ultimately, given the values that lie behind the niqab and the hijab alike, are these really the ideas schools should be endorsing or allowing?

The rationale behind the niqab and the hijab is rooted in the same modesty code. But the niqab is a far greater obstacle to integration, communication and learning, and a starker manifestation of the misogyny that underlies these religious practices.

We are constantly being told that young women's self- esteem is very low, but at the same time we are allowing very young children to come to school wearing an item of clothing that represents at best the idea that to be safe or gain respect from men they must cover up and worst it is a misogynistic and sexist practice. These codes must be challenged, but the case against allowing the niqab in schools is particularly compelling.

I believe there is a very strong argument based on child protection concerns to insist that the niqab should not be allowed at all in schools, including in faith schools, and the Government should legislate on this rather than leave it to individual schools.

See also: Position statement on the burka/niqab

Sadikur Rahman is on the NSS council. The views expressed in our blogs are those of the author and are not necessarily the views of the NSS.

Christian Concern back parents over accusations adopted son was “held down” at prayer meeting for an exorcism

News | Fri, 5th Feb 2016

Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre are assisting a couple whose adopted sons were removed, after accusations one of the boys had been held down at a prayer meeting while people talked in tongues to exorcise a demon.

Social workers also raised concerns that the "disciplinary regime" for the two children in the couple's house was "inappropriate, damaging and punitive" and that punishments went beyond a "smack".

The Telegraph reported that "The boys complained that they were unfairly smacked, shouted at and restrained by the couple, had soap put in their mouths when they swore and the older boy was put in cold showers when he behaved badly."

A prayer meeting eventually took place because it was believed that the older of the two boys was possessed by "demons". The boy's behaviour was said by the couple to be "impossible". At the meeting, the older boy said he was "held down" and restrained while attendees spoke to him in a "different language".

The couple admitted that "certain attendees" at the prayer meeting "talked in tongues around him".

In an interview about the case with LBC, the chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, Andrea Williams, confirmed that she did believe in demons.

Presenter Iain Dale said there was "clearly a lot of evidence" pointing to the poor treatment of the boys and accused her of refusing to "accept" that.

As the interview progressed Williams said that she spoke in tongues, though not "very often".

The Christian Legal Centre is backing the parents in their effort to regain custody of the younger child.

Judges ruled that "more analysis" is required of his case before a decision is made on the couple's appeal to have the younger boy put back under their care.

Christian Concern is one of a number of religious groups objecting to Government plans to introduce safeguarding measures for supplementary schools.

More than half of Americans still “less likely” to support a non-religious presidential candidate

News | Wed, 3rd Feb 2016

A Pew survey conducted in January 2016 has found that Americans are still put-off by an atheist presidential candidate, with 51% saying they would be less likely to support a non-religious aspirant.

While just 6% would be more likely to support an atheist and 41% say a hypothetical candidate's atheist "wouldn't matter", religious minorities fared much better than a candidate with no religion.

As in previous polls, a potential Muslim candidate would have much less of a disadvantage than a non-religious presidential hopeful. Over half of Americans, 53%, say they wouldn't be put-off by a Muslim candidate, and only 42% - almost ten points lower than for a non-religious candidate – would be less likely to vote for a Muslim.

American voters are more likely to vote for somebody who has had an extramarital affair or past financial troubles than a candidate who "does not believe in God."

The Pew Research Centre said that "being an atheist remains one of the biggest liabilities that a presidential candidate can have."

However they noted that "the share of American adults who say they would be less likely to vote for an atheist candidate has been declining over time" – pointing to a growing acceptance among Americans of non-religious candidates, despite the poll.

A secularist campaigner has gained headlines during the 2016 primaries for challenging candidates to defend the separation of church and state in America. The Washington Post reported that Justin Scott, from Iowa, "spoke to every major presidential contender and more than a few of the minor ones" about secularism – challenging them among other things over why an atheist should consider voting for them.

He told the Washington Post, "I'm all for you having your beliefs. Go to church. Wear your cross necklace. Bring your Bible to school. I don't care. But when I have elected officials trying to influence my life and my family's life based on their religious beliefs and traditions and preferences, I have a huge problem with that."

Scott remains optimistic about an openly non-religious candidate being elected in the future. "For a while, we didn't think we could have an African American president. And look what happened."