Newsline 8 May 2015

Newsline 8 May 2015

It has been a busy week, and not just with the election. As usual we've been working on a range of issues, with faith schools, free speech issues, abortion access, religious bloc votes, freedom of belief and religious persecution all featuring in the news in the past seven days.

Read our coverage of the week's events below, including commentary and opinion, news stories, and an important call to action to help a ten year old girl in Paraguay, who was raped by her step-father and is now pregnant- and who is being denied an abortion because of religious dogma.

If you support our work, please consider joining us. Becoming a member of the National Secular Society is a declaration of your support for the separation of the state from religious institutions. Make a stand for freedom, fairness and human rights by adding your voice to the call for a secular Britain.

News, Blogs & Opinion

Most Britons aren’t religious- but are religious ‘voting blocs’ wielding increasing power in our elections?

Opinion | Wed, 6th May 2015

Religious leaders are wielding disproportionate influence in this election. Benjamin Jones argues that this is likely to get worse, and politicians should resist the urge to treat religious people as blocs.

While the religious are declining as a share of the UK population, we are witnessing sectarian, religious politics on the rise – and not just in the egregious case of Lutfur Rahman.

From a politician's point-of-view, there are powerful incentives to encourage sectional, bloc-based voting- based on ethnicity and/or religion. Religious leaders can deliver hundreds of voters, community activism and outreach that is essentially unmatched. In an era of collapsing party membership, this is more valuable than gold.

The Henry Jackson Society found that Muslims- though numbering less than 3 million in the 2011 census- are poised to influence vital marginal constituencies and may tip the balance of the 2015 election.

The Society writes: "In a quarter of all constituencies … the number of Muslims is greater than the margin of victory ... This share rises to almost half (46.6%) among the 193 marginal seats, in 90 of which the number of Muslims is greater than the margin of victory."

While you can dispute whether religious bloc votes exist, and to what extent they can be harnessed, British Muslims are unusually politically homogenous. In 2014 some 73% said they supported Labour.

This leads to politicians courting religious blocs, and their treating religious communities as monoliths. The relatively disproportionate power of religious groups has led to politicians in this election promising to outlaw 'Islamophobia', continue to block legislation banning caste-based discrimination, and pledging to expand 'accommodation' for religious people who want to discriminate against homosexuals.

Not only do more homogenous religious groups achieve policy concessions (at least in manifestos), but voters within these groups are engaged by political parties explicitly as 'religious voters'. This is as true of UKIP's 'Christian Manifesto' as it is of the scandal of Labour MPs addressing a rally segregated by gender. You can debate whether the blocs exist, but politicians are increasingly behaving as though they are real.

The gatekeepers to these locally powerful groups are often socially conservative, orthodox figures- and almost always men. By approaching religious groups as monolithic entities in this way, 'minorities-within-minorities', like gay Muslims or women in orthodox religious groups, are disenfranchised.

Though not very widely reported, there have been real scandals in this campaign as politicians try anything to harness these groups.

The most widely reported- and perhaps least commented on by politicians- was the case of the Labour MPs who attended a gender segregated rally, and then tried to claim that the segregation was not enforced by organisers but arose spontaneously, despite attendees reporting that they were told by organisers to sit in gender-segregated zones. It goes without saying how unthinkable it would have been for politicians to appear at an event segregated on criteria other than gender. Religion gets away with it- despite the talk being a non-religious election event.

There are many other examples from this election: leaflets were sent out endorsing Conservative Bob Blackman, using divisive rhetoric about caste-discrimination, and praising him for voting against legislation outlawing caste-based discrimination.

In response he said that Islamic extremists had sent leaflets opposing him and supporting Labour. At the time of writing these leaflets have yet to surface.

Labour candidate Simon Danczuk, seeking re-election in Rochdale, tweeted a picture of himself with twenty or so Asian men- and no women- under the caption "such a diverse political culture in Rochdale – does make elections fun as this rally today shows!" He was lambasted for the post, and challenged over how a photo with no women or non-Asian men (save for Mr Danczuk himself) could possibly be 'diverse'. This just goes to show who is omitted by 'bloc' politics.

Elsewhere, the National Council of Hindu Temples was urged by the Charity Commission to remove a statement from their website which said Hindus voting for Labour or the Liberal Democrats (who are seeking to implement legislation to outlaw caste discrimination) were like "turkeys voting for Christmas."

There are countless other examples. One Tory candidate claimed that Labour campaigners used his sexuality to persuade Orthodox Jewish voters not to vote for him. Mike Freer, standing in Finchley and Golders Green, said: "Some of my Orthodox Jewish councillors were out knocking on doors and three residents also mentioned that they had had Labour round, and it had been brought up again, and they could no longer support me because I was gay."

The Exclusive Brethren – which gained charitable status for nearly 60 of its congregations in the past year under the Coalition- are said to be campaigning and 'praying' for a Tory victory.

This seems to be the shape of things to come- and it is a deeply troubling, non-trivial problem. The appeal to religious bloc votes is extremely unwelcome and the temptation for politicians to appeal to locally powerful but essentially reactionary figures should be resisted, not least because most people in the UK are not religious.

The disparity is compounded by the fact that there is no such thing as an 'atheist/non-believer bloc vote' to counteract these influential religious figures. Nor should there be: such a coalition would be nonsensical, the only thing holding it together would be a rejection of theistic, supernatural beliefs. Equally, a 'secular voting bloc' would be impossible. Secularism is (and should be) non-partisan. This does place us at something of a disadvantage however.

Religions wield disproportionate local influence; nationally the demographics are clear- most Britons are not religious. Vote-seeking politicians however are susceptible to religious influence, because 'community leaders' can command (or appear to command) a significant, unique local following- particularly in the vital marginal constituencies. This can all too easily lead to a privileging of religion and a 'multi-faith', essentially anti-secular, approach that shuts out the non-religious. It seems to skew how politicians view religion.

Another problem facing the non-religious and/or secularists is that on secularist issues there are essentially only 'least bad options' in the political mainstream. It is hard to cast an affirmative vote for secular policies- particularly on the right or centre-right where very few such options exist.

Secularism means a clear separation of church and state; but the separation of religion and politics is far more complex. There is a fine line between religious people being involved in politics – to which there is no reasonable, secular objection- and religion becoming involved in politics, which is a different matter altogether- and one to be wary of in this and future elections.

Take action: Urge Paraguayan authorities to provide a safe abortion for 10-year-old rape survivor

News | Thu, 7th May 2015

The National Secular Society is urging its supporters to call on Paraguayan authorities to grant an abortion to a 10-year-old-girl who is pregnant after having been raped by her stepfather.

Under the Catholic country's stringent anti-abortion laws, abortion is legal only when the life of the woman or girl is at risk. Despite the high risk this pregnancy poses and her mother's request, access to safe abortion has not been yet provided.

According the Convention on the Rights of the Child the best interest of the child has to always be of primary consideration and states have an obligation under the Convention to ensure access to abortion in these circumstances.

Lilian Soto, a feminist activist at the Centro de Documentación y Estudios (Centre of Documentation and Studies), has accused the Paraguayan judicial system of putting a minor's life at risk because of religious dogma.

She called on the authorities to establish an independent medical committee to evaluate the case free from the influence of religion.

In March 2015 the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights called on Paraguay to review and modify its abortion legislation to ensure its compatibility with other rights such as health and life.

The NSS is asking members and supporters to join Amnesty International's letter writing campaign calling on the Government to intervene to ensure the girl gets all the medical treatment she requires, including the termination of the unwanted pregnancy.

More background is available from Amnesty's action briefing: https://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/amnesty-action-briefing.pdf

Please write immediately in Spanish or English:

  • Urging the Paraguayan authorities to save the life of this 10-year-old-girl, pregnant as a result of rape by her stepfather, by granting her the abortion her mother has requested;
  • Reminding them that according to UN agencies, a pregnancy poses specific risks and potentially long-term consequences for the physical and mental health of girls;
  • Urging the authorities to carry out an independent and impartial investigation into the rape of the girl and to hold those responsible for the abuse accountable.

Please send appeals before 9 June 2015 to:

Minister of Public Health and Welfare
Ministro de Salud Pública y Bienestar
Dr. Antonio Barrios
Pettirossi Esq. Brasil
Asunción, Paraguay

Fax: +595 21 207 328 Email: ministro@mspbs.gov.py

Salutation: Dear Minister/Estimado Ministro

And

Attorney General
Fiscal General
Dr. Javier Diaz Veron
Chile c/ Ygatimí
Asunción, Paraguay

Phone/Fax: +595 21 415 6152

Email: fdiaz@ministeriopublico.gov.py

Salutation: Dear Attorney General/Estimado Fiscal General

Please also send copies to the Paraguayan Ambassador to the United Kingdom

His Excellency Mr. Miguel A. Solano-López C.
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Third Floor, 344 Kensington High Street
London, W14 8NS
United Kingdom

embaparuk@paraguayembassy.co.uk

91% of barristers would insist witnesses remove face veil while giving evidence

News | Wed, 6th May 2015

Over 90% of barristers would support some limits on face veils during trials, it has emerged.

A poll by the Bar Council of 400 of its members found that 57% of barristers would insist that face veils were removed for the entirety of court proceedings, while a further 34% supported a ban only when a defendant was giving evidence. In total, 91% are in favour of some restrictions.

These figures emerged following controversy over remarks recently made by Lord Neuberger, which were widely reported as calling for Muslim women to be free to wear face veils.

Lord Neuberger criticised the way his lecture was reported, a Supreme Court spokesman commented: "Lord Neuberger would like to emphasise that he did not say that Muslim women should be allowed to wear a full-face veil while giving evidence in court."

Lord Neuberger said that judges require an "understanding of different cultural and social habits" and added that "it is necessary to have some understanding as to how people from different cultural, social, religious or other backgrounds think and behave and how they expect others to behave."

"Well-known examples include how some religions consider it inappropriate to take the oath, how some people consider it rude to look other people in the eye, how some women find it inappropriate to appear in public with their face uncovered, and how some people deem it inappropriate to confront others or to be confronted - for instance with an outright denial."

This was first reported in the Daily Telegraph under the headline "Muslim women should be allowed to wear the veil in court, top judge suggests".

Home Secretary Theresa May previously said that the question of face veils in court rooms should be left for judges to decide upon, and the National Secular Society has called for clear guidance on the issue.

Writing to the NSS in November 2013, HM Courts & Tribunal Service said the Lord Chief Justice was "considering what guidance should be issued" and promised a public consultation would open in the "near future".

The issue arose following a case in which Judge Peter Murphy sitting at Blackfriars Crown Court ruled that Rebekah Dawson, who faced a charge of witness intimidation, must remove her veil when giving evidence, but could do so from behind a screen or via video link, hiding her from public view. Ms Dawson was free to wear the niqab for the duration of the trial, when not giving evidence herself.

In the ruling, the first of its kind, Judge Murphy said that to allow the woman to give evidence with her face covered would "drive a coach and horses through the way in which justice has been administered in the courts of England and Wales for centuries".

NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood commented that the wearing a full face veil "might conflict with justice being seen to be done, or even justice being done" and called for the matter to be resolved once and for all.

He said: "It is now 18 months since Judge Murphy spent a great deal of court time dealing with the question of full-face veils, and made a heartfelt plea for central guidance to avoid this inefficient use of expensive court's resources being replicated elsewhere. The Lord Chief Justice's office has been dealing with this for a long time but seems disappointingly reluctant to issue any direction.

"The opportunity should be taken to consider the position of defendants and witnesses, Judges and court officials, lawyers, and the jury. We believe none of them should be veiled."

See also: Position statement on the burka/niqab and face veils in court

Cardinal Nichols’ conflation of secularism and religious persecution is self-serving and shameful

Opinion | Sun, 3rd May 2015

It's grossly distasteful to equate the persecution of Christians in the Middle East with the discomfort felt by some Christians in Britain at having to provide services in a non-discriminatory manner, argues Alastair Lichten.

Cardinal Vincent Nichols's recent column in the Telegraph, entitled 'What are our leaders doing about religious persecution?' seemed to start off on the right track. The issue of religious persecution around the world should concern us all. The next Government must do more. It should appoint an ambassador for freedom of religion and belief. It should push for the global abolition of blasphemy and anti-conversion laws - which are used so widely against Christians and others.

People of all faiths and none are deeply concerned about the ongoing persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East. Secular organisations across the world have been visible in calling for better protections for freedom of religion and belief. Meanwhile religious minorities such as Coptic Christians in Egypt have been calling for the protection of a secular state.

Against a backdrop of Syrian Christians being driven into exile, Yazidis being sold into slavery and Saudi Arabian Christian meetings being broken up by the religious police, it is deeply shameful and embarrassing for Vincent Nichols to equate (as he goes on to do) requiring public services to be provided in a non-discriminatory fashion with persecution.

Nichols got all the way to his third paragraph (or his fourth if you're being exceptionally charitable) before trying to capitalize on genuine tragedy to promote his own agenda. It comes as no surprise that Cardinal Nichols dislikes "secularist ideology" – or at least his fantasy version of it – after all, being marginally less privileged is probably the worst form of marginalisation that the Cardinal has experienced.

To even conflate secularism and religious fundamentalism as the cardinal does is ludicrous. Secularists seek to challenge religious privilege and strive for a society where all are treated equally in public life regardless of belief or lack of it.

Cardinal Nichols's claim that greater state privileges for his preferred form of religion (including religious based schools and other public services) would act as a "bulwark against fundamentalism" are cringingly self-serving.

But sadly we've come to expect it. When hardline Islamists sought to take over secular state schools in Birmingham, the Archbishop of Canterbury's response was to call for more Church of England schools. The Islamist far-right seek to divide our country along religious lines and the nationalist far-right call for a stronger assertion of 'our Christian identity'.

Mr Nichols believes: "All public institutions should recognise that faith is at the core of our society". Should the majority of Britons who are not religious recognise this? What about the larger majority who are simply indifferent to, or don't want to be defined by, religion?

While most secularists would surely welcome the charitable work done by many Catholics and Catholic agencies, attempting to leverage this for religious privilege is unseemly at best. It is important that faith-based welfare services, which will never be suitable for all citizens, compliment and do not seek to replace state provision. Mr Nichols insists that government at all levels should uncritically support religious organisations providing core public services "in accordance with their beliefs".

This could lay a dangerous path towards the breakup of the secular welfare state which is blind to religion and treats everyone as equal citizens first and foremost.

The Cardinal's own Church's child abuse scandals show the terrifying potential for institutional abuse of power when state and religious functions become so deeply intertwined.

Curiously I've yet to meet a single Christian whose volunteering is conditional on religious privileges being maintained. I don't know a single Muslim who would leave helpline I volunteer for if they were prevented from using their position to proselytise. And I can't imagine a Hindu colleague saying they'd like to spend their Saturday evenings supporting at risk youngsters but only if they're allowed to discriminate against the gay ones.

British Muslim Youth object after cancellation of debate following police intervention

News | Tue, 5th May 2015

A Muslim youth organisation has complained that a debate they had arranged with ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson was prevented from taking place by South Yorkshire Police and the Rotherham Borough Council.

British Muslim Youth (BMY) issued a statement expressing their disappointment that a debate on whether "child sexual exploitation was a Muslim issue" was cancelled following interventions from South Yorkshire Police and the Rotherham Borough Council.

The founder of British Muslim Youth, Muhbeen Hussain, reported that the BMY had been 'bombarded' with messages asking why the event had been cancelled, and Mr Hussain said he wanted to expose the real reasons for the cancellation.

Mr Hussain was due to debate against Tommy Robinson.

Hussain said the first venue pulled out of hosting the talk after pressure was exerted by the South Yorkshire Police and the Rotherham Borough Council.

He blamed both the police and the council for preventing the event from going ahead as originally planned. The BMY had informed the police that the event was going on, and notified them that it was being held as a private event, with private security. Mr Hussain said he wanted the police to be aware of the event, however it now appears that the talk was scrapped because "pressure" was exerted on the venue, by the police.

A second venue is then said to have backed out of a signed contract to host the debate because of "advice" they had received from the Rotherham Borough Council and South Yorkshire Police. Mr Hussain claims that the venue was advised by the council and the police to cancel the event.

He said the police and council simply "didn't want" the debate to happen, and that they failed to contact the organisers after recommending that the second venue drop the planned talk.

Mr Hussain claimed there were "no substantial concerns" about the event and that he did not believe they had any "legal authority" to stop the event from going ahead. He alleged that the police used their "social authority" to wrongly stop the debate. He said the police scared the venue off hosting the talk.

The BMY founder said that police simply wanted to "cancel the event." He added that he would not be bullied into scrapping the talk.

NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "A climate exists whereby any critical discussion of Islam is being made difficult or even off-limits. Such a situation is counterproductive for British Muslims and is deeply deleterious for society".

We understand the debate has now been re-arranged for late July early August.

Watch the statement from the founder of British Muslim Youth, Muhbeen Hussain.

Faith school closes so staff can go on religious pilgrimage

News | Thu, 7th May 2015

A Catholic primary school in Birmingham closed for a day during term-time so that its staff could attend a pilgrimage to the Vatican.

Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Primary School in Birmingham closed its doors to pupils so that staff could go on a four day trip. Parents said the decision was a "disgrace." One father commented: "Parents are fined if they take their children out of school for trips or holidays … what I do find abhorrent is that a school will then fail to lead by example by closing to pupils so the teachers can swan off to Rome."

The headteacher said the most recent trip came after a "successful staff pilgrimage" two years prior. She added, "our faith is very important to us, as is the spirituality of both the children and the staff."

The trip was authorised by school governors, who are chaired by a local priest, the Very Rev. Canon Sean Grady, who has previously put his name to a letter urging the Government to reject equal marriage legislation, insisting marriage "is only possible between a man and a woman".

The Archdiocese of Birmingham said that "Catholic schools have a duty to support the spiritual development of staff, so that in turn, they are able to nurture the spiritual development of the pupils in their care."

He added that it is "an expectation that Catholic schools devote one of their five annual staff training days for this purpose. Such opportunities may include pilgrimage or retreat experiences.

"In making a pilgrimage to Rome, staff of this outstanding school have willingly given of their own time so that they can work to strengthen the Catholic mission of the school on their return."

The pilgrimage included time for staff to have "periods of reflection" and prayers.

The school, which prioritises 'baptised Catholic children' over non-Catholic in its admissions, is judged "outstanding" by Ofsted. The last Ofsted report in September 2014 said the school's "spiritual ethos" informs "every aspect of the school's work" and that "pupils show great respect for all faiths." The school's motto is "Christ is the centre of our school community, where we live, love and learn together."

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, commented: "It's very revealing that teacher training days are now being held at the Vatican. Rather than truly nurturing the development of the pupils in their care, it's clear that this publicly funded school operates more like a religious community, seeking to influence young children to adopt religious beliefs before they're mature enough to make up their own minds."