Outlaw 'caste' discrimination
Caste-based prejudice should have no place in modern Britain. We want to see caste-based discrimination explicitly recognised as a form of discrimination under UK equality legislation.
What's the problem?
The caste system is the result of ancient religious and cultural beliefs, most often, though not exclusively, associated with Hinduism. The caste system is imbued with inequality and discrimination, and is in diametric opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Research has estimated there are at least 50,000 (and perhaps in excess of 200,000) people living in the UK who are classified as "low caste" and at risk of caste discrimination, and found that there is caste-based discrimination, harassment and bullying present in employment, education and in the provision of services.
The Equality Act does not explicitly deal with the issue of caste, meaning victims of caste discrimination currently have to use unclear and precarious case law to secure justice. An express provision in the Equality Act 2010 would remove any legal uncertainty. Both Parliament and the United Nation Human Rights Council have called on the Government to explicitly outlaw caste-based discrimination, but it has delayed doing so for years.
In April 2017 the Government announced a long awaited public consultation on the issue of caste and the Equality Act 2010. This provides an opportunity to again press the Government to do the right thing and explicitly outlaw caste-based discrimination.
Find out more
Election 2019: pledges that should be in the parties’ manifestos
As the UK's political parties consider their manifestos for the upcoming election, NSS chief executive Stephen Evans outlines a series of secularist pledges they should include to advance freedom, fairness and equal citizenship.
The UK today has more religious diversity than ever before, and, for the first time, a non-religious majority. Yet the formal relationship between religion and the state has remained more or less unchanged in the past century.
Reform is long overdue. This election provides an opportunity to put an end to a number of anachronistic religious privileges and rethink religion's relationship with the state.
The 10 policy proposals below would promote a freer, fairer society where everyone has common rights and responsibilities regardless of religion or belief.
1. No more faith schools. Faith schools have a negative impact on social cohesion, foster segregation of children on social, ethnic and religious lines, and undermine choice and equality. They also enable religious groups to use public money to evangelise to children. Children from all faith and belief backgrounds should be educated together and allowed to develop their own beliefs independently. All parts of the UK should therefore move towards a more secular and inclusive education system. A pledge not to open any more state-funded faith schools would be a tangible first step towards building a more inclusive and cohesive society.
2. End religious discrimination against pupils in school admissions. No child should be discriminated against because of their parents' religious beliefs. Yet Equality Act exemptions permit many faith schools to give preference to children from families that share their religion. They can even choose to give preference to families from any religion over those with none. One of education's most powerful features is the ability to bring people together and to open opportunities for our children, no matter their background. What sort of message do our schools send when they discriminate based on religion? Faith schools should be stripped of their ability discriminate against pupils in admissions – and against teachers in employment, too.
3. Abolish the collective worship requirement. The law requiring children at all maintained schools "on each school day take part in an act of collective worship" is as ridiculous as it is outdated and unjust. Northern Ireland and Scotland have similar laws. Even in schools with no religious designation, the worship must be "wholly or mainly of a Christian character". Laws that impose worship in publicly funded schools are an anachronism and need to go. Instead, there should be a duty on schools to ensure that assemblies are respectful and inclusive of all pupils, regardless of their religion or belief, including non-belief. The same should apply to religious education which should be suitably reformed to ensure it is never used to indoctrinate or promote a particular worldview.
4. Promote free speech as a positive value. A healthy democracy is underpinned by the fundamental human right to free speech. It should be protected. The conflation of criticism or mockery of religion with 'hate speech', coupled with a burgeoning culture of offence, is threatening everyone's right to speak freely. Parties should begin by rejecting calls to adopt a definition of Islamophobia that defines it as "a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness". The law already protects individuals against attacks and unlawful discrimination on the basis of their religion. Rather than helping, this definition is likely to create a climate of self-censorship whereby people are fearful of criticising Islam and Islamic beliefs.
5. End non-stun slaughter. The next government should stop allowing religious considerations to compromise animal welfare. The religious exemption that permits certain religious groups to slaughter animals without prior stunning should be repealed. Ending unnecessary pain, suffering and distress to animals is a reasonable justification for restricting religious freedom. In the absence of a ban on non-stun slaughter, clear method of slaughter labelling requirements should be introduced to ensure consumers can avoid meat from inhumanely slaughtered animals if that's their choice.
6. Review laws on assisted dying. The law banning the terminally ill and people facing intolerable and incurable suffering from being helped to end their lives must be reviewed. The debate over assisted dying in the UK is still unduly influenced by religious dogma. Those with theological objections to assisted dying routinely couch their arguments in secular language, amplifying misleading arguments against it. A full review needs to cut through this and reach conclusions based on evidence, compassion, ethical principles and respect for patient autonomy.
7. End all forms of non-consensual genital cutting. The protections given to female children under laws prohibiting FGM should be extended to male and intersex children, so they are equally protected against non-therapeutic, non-consensual genital surgery. No-one, regardless of age, sex or religious or cultural background, should undergo non-therapeutic surgery without their express consent. Religious freedom isn't a licence to violate the rights of others.
8. Outlaw caste discrimination. The next government should ensure there is appropriate and proportionate legal protection against unlawful discrimination because of a person's perceived 'caste'. The research tells us that significant number of people living in the UK are at risk of caste discrimination. Adding 'caste' to the list of protected characteristics under the Equality Act would ensure that caste-based discrimination is explicitly prohibited under UK law and that victims of this form of discrimination have access to effective remedies.
9. End 'the advancement of religion' as a charitable purpose. Unlike the relief of poverty, the promotion of good health, saving lives and protecting the environment, the public benefit of "the advancement of religion" is highly contestable. The promotion of religion is not inherently a public benefit and can sometimes even cause harm to society. Removing 'the advancement of religion' as a charitable purpose would not prevent religious organisations from enjoying charitable status, but would require them to demonstrate a tangible public benefit under another charitable purpose heading.
10. Guarantee secular public services. Public services, especially those funded by public money, should be provided in a secular context, open to all, without discriminating against anyone on grounds of religion or belief. Where religious organisations join others in delivering public services, they should be obliged to do so without discriminating against their employees; withholding services from users on the grounds of religion or sexuality; or proselytising when delivering that service.
And one more we'd really like to see…
11. Separate church and state. The next government should disestablish the Church of England and abolish the automatic right of Anglican bishops to sit in the House of Lords. A national religion which retains archaic and unjust privileges is iniquitous to the rest of the population. Removing all symbolic and institutional ties between government and religion is the only way to ensure equal treatment to citizens of all religions and none. The UK's constitution is likely to come under scrutiny in the next parliament. The time has come to get on with it.
The NSS has written to all major political parties this week asking them to adopt these secularist pledges in their election manifestos.
Image by BedexpStock from Pixabay.
How secularism protects people who have religious faith
For Interfaith Week 2018, campaigns officer Megan Manson explains how the National Secular Society's work protects those who are religious as well as those who are not.
One of the most common misconceptions about the National Secular Society is that we are an atheist campaigning group. For much of our 150-year history this was indeed the case, but the modern day NSS has changed its focus so it is entirely focused on state neutrality on religion. Today we work towards building a more equal, inclusive and just society based on secularism and on the application of universal human rights. Our members come from across the political spectrum and religious spectrum.
What's more, the NSS actually spends considerable time and resources upholding the human rights of people within faith communities, and working together with members of those communities to fight injustices.
Many of the issues we campaign on are niche areas affecting religious minorities, which have little or no direct impact on people who aren't affiliated with the religion. We care about these issues because secularism is for everyone, regardless of their beliefs or faith background. When people come to us for help (which they do daily), we don't ask them about their religious beliefs. We're just interested in protecting the human rights that we all share.
It's important to respect that those we defend often retain their faith long after losing trust in the religious institutions that have wronged them. But where human rights are being breached, both those of faith and of no faith are equally entitled to secular justice.
In light of Interfaith Week, here's a look of some of the work we've been doing this year to defend the human rights of people in Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and other faith communities.
Cracking down on 'conversion therapy'
So-called 'conversion therapy' is the pseudoscientific method of trying to turn LGBT+ people heterosexual. Individuals who seek conversion therapy are usually religious. That's because their religious community has taught them that attractions towards people of the same sex are sinful. It becomes a deep source of shame and stigma within their community.
The organisations that offer the 'therapy' are also religious. They prey upon the desperation of individuals who believe that they are suffering an 'affliction', and that this affliction damages their relationship with their community and their God. The 'therapists' can charge a considerable fee for this service.
Conversion therapy doesn't work. Instead, it frequently causes psychological (and sometimes physical) harm to the individual. It is also inherently homophobic, treating same-sex attraction as a disorder rather than the natural preference of the individual.
That's why the NSS has been campaigning against conversion therapy for many years. After we wrote to professional psychological groups asking that they tell their members not to endorse the practice, all major counselling and psychotherapy bodies condemned conversion therapy by signing a Memorandum of Understanding in 2015.
This year perhaps saw the biggest victory yet: a government announcement that it would work to end the practice of 'conversion therapy' in the UK. At our recent Healthcare & Secularism Conference we were delighted to offer a survivor of conversion therapy who is also a member of the general synod of the Church of England a platform to speak about her experiences from a faith perspective. Jayne Ozanne spoke passionately about her journey of self-acceptance, remarking somewhat tongue in cheek, that she seemed had more friends in secularist circles that at the synod.
Ending caste-based discrimination
Another issue that is little-known outside specific faith contexts is that of caste-based discrimination. Found predominantly in Hindu communities, caste systems in the UK have led to discrimination, harassment and bullying in employment, education and in the provision of services.
Equality law exists to protect people from unfair treatment because of certain personal characteristics, such as race or religion. Despite this, there is nothing specific in the Equality Act to deal with caste-based discrimination, even though perceived caste is a characteristic that a person cannot choose.
So the NSS has been working together with anti-caste campaigners both to raise awareness of the issue, and to call for legislation to protect people from discrimination. We criticised the government's decision in July not to incorporate caste into equality law along with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We will continue to campaign for this unjustifiable form of discrimination to be recognised and outlawed.
Exposing the harm of religious 'courts'
Secularism means there should be one law for all – the laws of the land should treat everyone equally, regardless of religious or cultural background. That's why we're concerned with the proliferation of religious tribunals that actively undermine the justice system, as well as the rights of people 'subject' to them.
A particular concern are 'sharia councils', because there is an evident lack of awareness in some communities that they have no legal authority whatsoever. Muslim women who have migrated to the UK with low English proficiency are especially at risk, because sharia councils can be discriminatory towards women and leave them vulnerable to abusive relationships.
We've been working with equalities campaigners, many of them themselves Muslim women, to prevent sharia councils from undermining human rights and British law. This year we co-signed an open letter co-ordinated by Southall Black Sisters to the Ministry of Justice calling for government advice for women to seek out religious 'courts' and to guarantee access to justice for all.
Free expression for all, including people of faith
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that should never be restricted by religious concerns. This is why we campaign so vigorously to abolish blasphemy laws. As recent events have shown, the victims of blasphemy laws are frequently members of a religion themselves.
In October the plight of Asia Bibi brought Pakistan's draconian blasphemy laws to the world's attention. A group of Muslim women refused to share a bowl of water with Bibi because she is a Christian. Bibi challenged them, and following an argument the Muslim women reported Bibi to the local cleric for allegedly insulting Muhammad. A Pakistani court convicted Bibi of blasphemy and sentenced her to death.
The NSS joined other human rights campaigners in defending Bibi, by writing to the Foreign Office and urging it to put pressure on Pakistan to release her. Since then, Pakistan's Supreme Court has ordered Bibi to be freed. Bibi and those who defended her in Pakistan are still in danger, but the court's reversal of her prosecution is a step in the right direction.
Defending survivors of clerical abuse
The campaigns described so far primarily affect adults. But some of our most critical work is standing up for the rights of the most vulnerable people of all in faith communities: infants and children. And it is children who are usually the victims of clerical abuse.
Secrecy, close ties with the establishment, a sense of entitlement and ready access to large groups of young and vulnerable people mean that religious organisations are easy targets for sexual predators. When abuse does occur, the victims can find it extremely hard to get justice; not least because they are usually children. Even in adulthood, survivors of clerical abuse find that powerful religious institutions are well-positioned to cover up their crimes and bully victims into silence. And they are highly motivated to do so in order to protect their reputation.
The NSS has long worked with survivors of clerical abuse, particularly within the Catholic Church and the Church of England. We've assisted the United Nations in its investigations into countries with significant clerical abuse problems. In his capacity as a lawyer representing survivors Richard Scorer, who is also our vice-president, has pushed for a law requiring mandatory reporting at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.
And we were proud to give the 2018 Secularist of the Year award to Phil Johnson and Rev. Graham Sawyer, who have campaigned on behalf of victims of abuse which took place within the Church of England.
Bodily autonomy for all children
Clerical sexual abuse of children is illegal and universally condemned. But children within religious communities can be harmed in other ways that are not against the law, and that may even be condoned by the state and by large proportions of society. One such form of harm is male circumcision.
In the UK, the practice of non-therapeutic genital cutting in children is almost exclusively found in religious communities. There are no laws protecting boys from this excruciating and permanent form of body modification. Meanwhile, although all forms of genital cutting in girls (FGM) are against the law, there have been no successful convictions for FGM in the UK.
We believe that all children, regardless of gender or religious background, should be entitled to make their own decisions about their bodies. No-one, baby, child or adult, should be subject to non-therapeutic genital cutting without their express consent. That's why we work alongside those raised in Jewish and Muslim communities in campaigning to end religious genital cutting of children, and to raise awareness of this topic which is often poorly understood by those outside the 'cutting communities'. We've been particularly vocal on the issue this year, with NSS representatives appearing on national TV and radio to make the case for children's bodily autonomy.
Proper schooling for children raised in faith communities
We believe that faith should never be a barrier to children's education. While the NSS is perhaps better known for our No More Faith Schools campaign, we also speak out for the rights of children who are being educated within faith schools.
This year, we exposed the distorted relationships and sex education (RSE) that thousands of children are receiving in faith schools across England. We found that RSE lessons in faith schools were teaching that same-sex relationships, contraception and sex outside of religious marriage are wrong. We campaign for all children, regardless of their faith background, to have the right to inclusive and objective RSE, and we have shared our findings and our concerns with the government.
Our campaigns for children's right to a worthwhile education goes beyond the state sector. We've been at the forefront on the crackdown on unregistered, illegal faith schools. Such schools not only fail to provide children with a broad and balanced education; they also fail to safeguard the pupils and may even leave them vulnerable to radicalisation. We've provided evidence to the government to help tackle unregistered schools, including recommending reforms to elective home education which can sometimes be used as a cover for illegal schooling.
Secularism recognises all individuals as human beings with equal rights and dignity. That's why we'll continue to campaign for everyone, no matter what their faith or background, has access to secular justice, secular healthcare, and secular education.
Only secularism can defeat the emboldened Hindu right
Violent threats look set to censor a film which was due for UK release today. It's the latest sign of rising Hindu fundamentalism. In response, Chris Sloggett says, we must make sure no religion gets special treatment.
The makers of the Bollywood historical epic Padmavati say it doesn't feature a love affair between a 14th-century Indian Queen and a Muslim invader. But for members of Rajput Karni Sena it doesn't seem to matter. Cinemas that screen the film, the group's leader said last week, should be burnt down.
Just a month earlier another group told British cinemas: "Our members are trained in handling a large array of weapons ranging from swords to AK-47s." A proportionate reaction, you will surely agree, to rumours that a film might offend someone's religious sensibilities. (To be fair, viewers do also risk catching a glimpse of the Queen's midriff at one point).
The threat of violence is credible. Filming already had to be moved because a gang broke on to the set and beat up the director. And it gets worse. Suraj Pal Amu, a senior official with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), said he would reward those who beheaded the film's star and director. That's the BJP of Narendra Modi, the prime minister of the world's second most populous country.
Padmavati has been banned in three Indian states. It was due to be released in the UK today; the British Board of Film Classification has given the film a 12A rating and passed it uncut. But good luck trying to see it. The producers have indefinitely delayed its release – and even if it does eventually get released, how many cinemas will take the risk?
This is just the latest Hindu fundamentalist attack on free expression. Last week Australia's advertising standards body said an advert could not be shown because it made a joke about an elephant-headed god. The board decided the advert's creators had discriminated against or vilified a group of people because they called Ganesha "the elephant in the room". People who write, draw or film are being put on notice: if religious groups sense the chance to play the victim card, they will shut you up – with the help of the supposedly secular authorities.
This is not a new phenomenon. In 2006 hardline Hindus managed to close an exhibition of MF Husain's work in London – and drive the artist into exile from India – because they disliked his paintings of nude goddesses. And as Nick Cohen noted in You Can't Read This Book: 'The reaction to [this] attack on intellectual freedom in the heart of a city that boasted of being a great cultural capital was instructive. There was no reaction.' Artists and intellectuals stayed silent. Press coverage was non-existent. Politicians tacitly accepted that religious sentiments should be 'respected'.
In the West it is perhaps easy to miss the rise of fundamentalism that is neither Christian nor Islamic. Christianity is assumed to be the traditional western religion, and still enjoys great institutional power in countries such as the UK. Islam has a growing presence; its fundamentalists are increasingly assertive; it brings a bigger risk of terrorism than other religions; and Western society's reluctance to stand up to unreasonable demands made in its name has been particularly obvious.
Many on both the political right and left spend a great deal of time talking about Islam in whichever way fits their agendas, with the risk that all else gets forgotten. Reading through the initial paragraphs of this piece, with a few isolated word changes, you could be forgiven for thinking they were about Islam. And indeed Islamism is a potent threat to our freedom to follow or ignore religion as we wish.
But it is not the only one. Donald Trump has risen to power on the back of the US Christian right. Vladimir Putin has allied himself closely with the Russian Orthodox Church. Benjamin Netanyahu's Government is increasingly threatened by people who want to stop rail works taking place on Saturday or restrict Government funding for dance performances which contain nudity.
And as India in particular shows us, Hindu intolerance also stands emboldened. Modi's party sees India as an explicitly Hindu country. In March it appointed Yogi Adityanath to run India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh. Adityanath has been accused of attempted murder, criminal intimidation and rioting. He has spent time in prison for violating public restrictions in an area at risk of erupting into Hindu-Muslim violence. Since taking office he has even helped to stir up sentiment against the Taj Mahal, which was not included in the state's latest tourism brochure because of its Muslim heritage.
In April a Pew analysis ranked India the fourth-worst country in the world for religious intolerance. Among its most shocking findings was that beef-eating Muslims had been lynched. Other reports also suggest attacks on religious minorities are increasing in India.
This may seem like a faraway quarrel to those of us in the UK, but the Government's response has been to seek closer trade links with India. And that is weakening its resolve at home: its foot-dragging on caste discrimination, in particular, is sending a damaging message that those of 'other' cultures can treat each other as badly as they like.
This weakness encourages both Hindu fundamentalism and other religious movements which define themselves by their opposition to it. Most of us may take a while to notice this, but the failure to set a consistent tone fuels the sense of identity-based grievance – both legitimate and otherwise – behind social disintegration. And unless the ideas which start on society's fringes are defeated they enter, and eventually dominate, mainstream discourse.
If you think this is unlikely to matter, consider last year's mayoral campaign in London, when Zac Goldsmith's ham-fisted campaign tried to target Hindu and Sikh voters with specific messages. At one point he managed to make a point which was both alarming and irrelevant, by sending voters literature stressing his support for Modi.
Goldsmith's campaign seemed designed to gain votes by setting Hindu and Sikh groups against Muslims – a strategy surely inspired by the faith of his opponent, Sadiq Khan, and many of his supporters. Meanwhile a significant chunk of polite left-leaning opinion told voters to elect Khan not on his merits, but because it would be good to have a Muslim mayor.
Khan's identity – and a very shallow version of it at that – became a major issue for both his supporters and detractors. Few people seemed to make the case that Londoners should probably pick their mayor based on who would make the tube run on time, protect them from criminals or find a credible way to build enough affordable homes.
We can only put such substantive issues back in the centre of public attention if we stand consistently for the principle that religion is a private matter. The more one 'side' makes its beliefs an area of public interest and gains special concessions, the more its competitors will demand the same thing.
Radicals must be told that people are entitled to their beliefs but not to weaponise them in public debate. Defeating any form of fundamentalism means returning to secular principles: religions are sets of ideas which do not deserve extra 'respect'; everyone has freedom of religion, but that comes with responsibilities to adhere to a basic set of common values and not to infringe on the liberty of others; and policy-making should be based on reason, not grievance-mongering.
It doesn't sound too difficult. But when religion is asserting itself so strongly, the only certainty is that it will need saying again and again.
Discuss this on Facebook.
Image of Narendra Modi from Wikimedia Commons, user Jasveer10, shared under Creative Commons Licence 4.0.
Caste discrimination: Fear of upsetting religious groups must not impede social justice
Caste discrimination is the latest area where misplaced sensitivity could allow deference to religion to trump social justice, argues Stephen Evans.
The Government's recently launched consultation on caste discrimination reveals something very alarming. Despite the countless injustices wrought by undue respect and privilege for organised religion, the Government still seems to be allowing religious sensitivity to get in the way of doing the right thing.
In this latest example, the Government's eagerness not to upset groups claiming to represent British Hindus means those at risk of discrimination on the basis of caste may continue to receive no statutory legal protection.
To outlaw caste discrimination, you first need to define it. An Explanatory note to the Equality Act 2010 does that just fine:
"The term 'caste' denotes a hereditary, endogamous (marrying within the group) community associated with a traditional occupation and ranked accordingly on a perceived scale of ritual purity. It is generally (but not exclusively) associated with South Asia, particularly India, and its diaspora. It can encompass the four classes (varnas) of Hindu tradition (the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra communities); the thousands of regional Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Muslim or other religious groups known as jatis; and groups amongst South Asian Muslims called biradaris. Some jatis regarded as below the varna hierarchy (once termed "untouchable") are known as Dalits."
However, the Government's consultation expresses concern that this definition "contains origin and community identifiers, which has led to controversy and resentment because it associates caste with particular religions, which may be socially divisive".
Surely we've learned by now that what really is socially divisive is when we turn a blind eye to discrimination and abuse in certain 'communities' for fear of upsetting religious or cultural sensitivities – or more accurately the sensitivities of 'religious leaders'.
Take Rotherham, for example. The inaction and silence there over the rape, torture and sex trafficking of children was driven by political correctness and a fear of tackling the fact that victims had identified perpetrators as being of Pakistani and Muslim heritage.
However misguided, some of the reluctance to tackle this was no doubt well-intentioned, but concern over protecting race relations and religious harmony should never have prevented authorities from doing the right thing by the victims.
Other examples where 'treading carefully' around religion has impeded and continues to impede social justice includes the failure to deal with FGM and genital cutting, unregistered and illegal 'faith' schools, 'witchcraft' allegations and the widespread physical and sexual abuse by clerics of the Catholic Church. The list is endless.
Secularism challenges religious privilege. It allows a light to be shone on the shady parts of religion that some religious leaders would prefer was left shrouded in darkness.
But as the leader of a Muslim youth organisation in Rotherham pointed out, "The fact these guys were predominantly Pakistani heritage men should not be a reason for providing a cloak of invisibility."
With its reluctance to upset British 'high-caste' Hindus, the Government risks providing a cloak of invisibility to allow discrimination on the grounds of caste to continue.
The Hindu Council UK has been highly vocal in its opposition to anti-caste discrimination law, complaining that "many allegations have been made at the Hindu Community in the UK stating that we promote caste discrimination". If Hindu organisations want to distance themselves from caste discrimination, that's great – all they need to do it condemn it outright and support legislation to outlaw it.
But instead, the Director of Interfaith Relations the Hindu Council, Anil Bhanot OBE, pretends that caste isn't an issue in the UK, and describes attempts to get it included in the Equality Act as the "vengeful" act of Dalits (the bottom of the Hindu caste system) stemming from animosity toward 'higher castes'.
The reality is that such discrimination does exist in the UK and it is rooted in and perpetuated by religion. It's impossible to have a sensible discussion about caste discrimination without recognising this.
This doesn't mean we need to get into a theological debate or play the blame game. Can we not just all accept that any prejudice and discrimination based on a person's origin is unfair and unacceptable in a modern society and that it should be unlawful? In the interest of protecting religious freedom, places of worship may have limited exemptions to continue to discriminate, but in the secular sphere – the workplace and in the provision of goods and services, discrimination on grounds of caste must no longer be tolerated.
Too often leaders and institutions duck difficult issues in fear of being labelled racist or insensitive. This again seems to be the case with the Government Equalities Office. It's clear from the wording of the consultation that Government would much rather kick legislation explicitly outlawing caste discrimination into the long grass. To do so would be to side with the discriminators.
Stephen Evans is the campaigns director of the National Secular Society. You can follow him on Twitter @stephenmevans1. The views expressed in our blogs are those of the author and may not represent the views of the NSS.
This article was originally published by Conatus News.
Why won’t the Government get serious about caste discrimination?
When the Equality Act was passed by parliament in 2010, it was hailed as a piece of landmark harmonising anti-discrimination legislation that embraced new discrimination strands and strengthened existing ones. One discrimination strand that didn't quite make the grade however, was caste.
Secular and anti-discrimination campaigners did however persuade the previous Labour Government to amend the Equality Bill, to include an enabling power to make caste a protected characteristic as a result of which discrimination and harassment on the grounds of caste would be outlawed.
This means that the power can be triggered by a Minister without further primary legislation if and when it was considered appropriate to do so. One reason for this "half way house" was that the (then Labour) Government was largely persuaded by the representations of anti-caste groups, peers and the National Secular Society, but wanted to make sure there was credible independent evidence of discrimination before legislating fully.
So at the same time as tabling the amendment, the Government commissioned a report into the prevalence of caste prejudice and discrimination in the UK which was undertaken by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR).
There was a change of Government shortly after the Act was passed and the report (pdf) was subsequently published. It found significant evidence of caste discrimination, harassment and bullying in employment, education and the provision of services, including care.
It estimated that the UK population includes somewhere between 50,000–200,000 of low caste communities, living in 22 localities. It said: "Alleged caste discrimination and harassment in the area of work were identified in respect of bullying and harassment, social exclusion, recruitment, promotion, task allocation and dismissal."
Journalist and NSS honorary associate Nick Cohen described the report as little more than "a list of pointless cruelties."
The new Government has nevertheless resolutely refused to trigger the power.
Thankfully, support is at hand from the United Nations. Earlier this year the UN Human Rights Council increased the pressure on the British Government by calling on it to "develop a national strategy to eliminate caste discrimination, including the immediate adoption of the clause in the Equality Act … in accordance with its international human rights obligations".
The recommendation was made following the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the UK, a process through which the human rights records of the United Nations' Member States are reviewed and assessed. A submission (pdf) to the UPR by the National Secular Society and International Humanist & Ethical Union advocated precisely this action.
In a formal response (pdf), the UK Government has said the recommendation "does not enjoy the support of the United Kingdom" and that it is "considering the evidence" available to it.
Campaigners have accused the Government of dragging its heels on the issue. The Dalit Solidarity Network has now launched a petition calling on Home Secretary Theresa May to activate the aforementioned clause in the Equality Act, and ensure that caste discrimination is outlawed in the UK.
Likewise, after years of inertia, the Equality & Human rights Commission has also come out in support of the introduction of legislation.
In the Indian sub-continent, over 250 million people are directly affected by caste based discrimination. Victims find themselves on the receiving end of brutal discrimination affecting their daily livelihood; access to jobs, education and employment, health and access to public services.
The increase in population of those who have arrived in the UK from the Indian Sub-continent means the communities that have settled here have also brought with them their own social habits, norms and religious customs – such as the institution of caste.
The National Secular Society has expressed concern that action to tackle caste discrimination is being impeded by vested interests from within the communities affected.
Both the Hindu Forum of Britain and Hindu Council UK oppose legislation to outlaw caste discrimination. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they claim that there is either no or very little caste discrimination in the UK. Anil Bhanot, General Secretary, Hindu Council UK has said that UK born Hindus are "hardly aware of the old hierarchies of the caste system". The heart-rending testimonies in the NIESR research paint a very different picture.
It can't be right that a modern democracy such as ours stands by while its citizens suffer on grounds of caste based discrimination. It's time the Government got off the fence, and instead, offered hope to the tens of thousands of British Asians whose lives are blighted by such prejudice.
See also:
Related news
Baroness Thornton joins the NSS as an honorary associate
Posted: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:24
The National Secular Society is delighted to welcome Baroness Thornton as a new honorary associate.
Glenys Thornton served as Labour's equality spokesperson from 2011 to 2015 and now focuses her work in the House of Lords on issues related to education, equality and human rights.
She has played a significant role in the campaign to outlaw caste-based discrimination. She was responsible, while Labour was in office, for enabling legislation and commissioning a report which confirmed that caste-based discrimination was a problem in the UK.
She recently spoke in a debate in the House of Lords on the matter. She told peers that parliament owed an apology to the Dalit community in the UK.
"I feel that we owe an apology. I think that the Government do, and I would like to apologise to the Dalit community in the UK for having lived with inaction on this issue for so long. We gave the power in 2010 to put forward caste discrimination as a protected characteristic. It is shocking that we have not done so."
She commended campaigners against caste discrimination for their persistence and said that the Conservative Government's failure to act "shows a contempt for Parliament that is really unacceptable".
NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood said:
"We are delighted that Baroness Thornton is joining our outstanding group of peers in the House of Lords, campaigning for secularism and protecting human rights. Baroness Thornton has spoken powerfully about the need to outlaw caste-based discrimination, something which the National Secular Society has campaigned on since 2009."
Calls for Government to outlaw caste discrimination after tribunal rules in favour of victim kept in “domestic servitude”
Posted: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:56
A victim's charity has slammed Government inaction on caste discrimination, following an Employment Tribunal awarding nearly £200,000 to a woman who worked for four and a half years in horrendous conditions.
Despite the ET ruling in favour of a woman who claimed to be a victim of caste discrimination, it is feared that many will remain without legal protection from discrimination because the Government is refusing to enact legislation to clarify that caste is an aspect of the protected characteristic of 'race'.
The victim, known as Ms Tirkey, was kept in "domestic servitude" by a couple who employed her for over four years on 11p an hour, forcing her to sleep on the floor after working long days. They also prohibited her from contacting her family and from bringing her Bible with her from India, telling her that she would have "no time to read whilst she was working".
The claimant was of the "lowest class" in the "caste pyramid" and her family "has always carried out domestic work or one kind or another", according to the ruling.
When she arrived in the UK Ms Tirkey's employers set up a bank account in her name, which they retained control of, and she was made to work for 18 hours per day, for seven days a week.
The Employment Tribunal ruled decisively in her favour for "indirect religious discrimination" and "direct race discrimination". She was awarded £183,773 for underpayment of wages, with a further hearing to determine punitive damages for the discrimination.
Ms Tirkey was keen for others to avoid her fate: "I want the public to know what happened to me as it must not happen to anyone else. The stress and anxiety that this sort of thing creates for a person can destroy them."
The Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit, a charity that provides legal representation to victims of labour exploitation and which aided Ms Tirkey in her case, has described the Government's position on caste discrimination as "untenable".
Chris Milsom, Ms Tirkey's barrister, said, "Those who have closely followed the legislative history of the Equality Act will recall that the Government's original rationale for refusing explicit prohibition of caste-based discrimination was that there was no evidence of it taking place in the UK. The damning findings of the Employment Tribunal render that stance untenable. Where such discrimination exists its victims must be protected".
The report on caste prepared for the Government almost five years ago "identified evidence suggesting caste discrimination and harassment" in relation to "work … provision of services and education."
The National Secular Society has called once again for the Government to legislate immediately to explicitly prohibit caste discrimination after "years of prevarication and procrastination".
Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the National Secular Society, commented on the ruling: "While the individual ruling is clearly good news for the claimant, it does not set a precedent that can be used in future cases. The ruling completely undermines the Government's disingenuous claim that this case makes legislation unnecessary.
"The Government's refusal to act is in defiance of Parliament's twice expressed wish, the UN's recommendation, and our treaty obligation to enact law explicitly prohibiting caste discrimination.
"The Government must recognise the extent of the problem and offer an accessible and effective legal remedy. This case shows that the case law they advocate provides neither.
"As this example demonstrates, satisfactory outcomes to case law are very limited. The process is beyond the financial reach of most, especially those of low caste, hence the necessity for the assistance of a charity to pursue this case. That is why the law must be changed to provide access to justice for all victims of caste discrimination, but the Government has set its face against this, for less than noble reasons.
"I am alarmed at the growing visibility and strength of those opposing such legislation, who will almost inevitably include high caste Hindus, and the carelessness with facts with which they pursue their opposition.
"Sadly, the protection demonstrably needed by those of low caste in the UK, as seen in this case, seems further away than ever given the Government's obdurate refusal for over five years to acknowledge the strength of the case for legislation."
Anthony Lester QC, a human rights lawyer has also described the case as being "of no value as a precedent" and said the government "should not be allowed to use it as an excuse for defying the will of parliament" and refusing to outlaw caste discrimination.
The National Secular Society and Lord Eric Avebury recently wrote to Prime Minister David Cameron protesting the Government's failure to outlaw caste discrimination and calling on him to act urgently to deal with the problem. The reply completely failed to answer the charges.
In February 2015 a debate in the House of Lords saw honorary associates of the National Secular Society strongly criticise the Government's inaction and its failure to implement specific legislation.
In late 2010 research suggested that perhaps in excess of 200,000 people in the UK were victims of caste-based discrimination.
Caste: Anti-discrimination groups issue ‘urgent call’ to participate in government’s consultation
Posted: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:29
The NSS has urged supporters to respond to a Government consultation on caste discrimination. The Society has assisted with launching a new website aiding those who support specifically outlawing discrimination based on 'caste' to respond to the consultation.
The site says, "No matter who you are, this consultation gives the opportunity to send a clear message to the Government that legislation should protect people subjected to caste discrimination."
Currently, caste discrimination is not expressly prohibited under UK equality legislation. However, in 2013 Parliament directed the Government to legislate by amending the Equality Act 2010 to require the Government to make 'caste' a protected characteristic, as an aspect of race.
The UN has also formally recommended on several occasions making caste discrimination unlawful "in accordance with the UK's international human rights obligations".
Despite this, NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood said, "The Government has procrastinated, seemingly determined to ignore both Parliament and the UN, we fear to appease 'high caste' Hindu groups determined to prevent any such legislation. Caste discrimination is not confined to any one religion."
The Government promised a consultation, which it finally launched this year. But the consultation itself was harshly criticised by the National Secular Society and departing Labour MP Graham Allen, who said it was "misleading and biased."
Mr Allen said the Government's "clear intention is to delay – probably forever – legislative protection against caste discrimination".
A coalition of anti-caste campaigners behind the website are urging everyone to "ensure protection against caste discrimination by completing the Government consultation and specifically choosing the option to add caste to the Equality Act 2010."
In 2010 the Government commissioned independent research into Caste Discrimination in the UK by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR). They found strong evidence of caste-based discrimination in the areas covered by the Equality Act 2010 - employment, education and the provision of goods and services, but the Act does not extend to religious or social life. In 2014, the EHRC published two independent research reports from the project Caste in Britain confirming the undeniable existence of caste discrimination in the UK in areas covered by the Equality Act 2010.
Mr Wood called on supporters of equality to: "Please complete the consultation to maximise pressure on the Government to legislate. It seems desperate to avoid hearing from the people who are actually affected by this or who abhor such demeaning discrimination, despite the concern Mrs. May expressed on her first day in office about race discrimination. Please make sure your voice is heard."
Charity Commission to investigate Hindu group over ‘extremist’ speaker
Posted: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:48
The Charity Commission is to investigate a Hindu organisation after it invited a controversial Hindu nationalist to a House of Commons event.
Southall Black Sisters and the Women Against Radicalisation Network are among those calling for National Hindu Council of Temples (NHCT) to lose their charitable status over their promotion of Tapan Ghosh.
The open letter to the Charity Commission, also supported by the Association of British Muslims and the Asian Mums Network, criticised the NCHT for inviting Tapan Ghosh to speak in Parliament, saying the event was aimed at "stirring up religious hatred in Britain" and that the organisation "should be stripped of its charity status".
Mr Ghosh appeared at event in Parliament on 18 October, hosted by the NHCT and Conservative MP Bob Blackman, called "Tolerating the Intolerant". According to the Times, Mr Ghosh was the keynote speaker and talked about his West Bengal based Hindu Samhati, referred to by some as a "Hindu Defence Force". Such groups have been implicated in violence against Muslim minorities, including rising mob violence against those eating or accused of eating beef.
The National Secular Society welcomed the investigation, warning that Hindu Nationalism or Hindutva was a "divisive far-right religio-political ideology, akin to Islamism".
Mr Gosh is on record calling on the United Nations to control the birth rate of Muslims and has previously been accused of promoting anti-Muslim conspiracies, praising the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in in Burma, and calling for Muslims to be forced to convert if moving to a western country. He has also tweeted that "All Muslims are jihadis". Mr Gosh and the NHCT have been accused of developing links with other far right nationalist movements, and last week Mr Gosh took part in an interview with former EDL leader Tommy Robinson.
Mr Blackman defended Ghosh's appearance to BBC News last week, saying that Mr Ghosh's talk had not focused on anti-Muslim issues, and that he did not regret sharing a platform with him.
The National Council of Hindu Temples has been investigated by the Charity Commission before for appearing to endorse the Conservative Party in the 2015 and 2017 general elections. In both cases perceived Labour support for outlawing caste discrimination was seen as a significant factor. Bob Blackman, the MP for Harrow East, is chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for British Hindus and a vocal campaigner against efforts to outlaw discrimination based on the idea of caste.
A spokesperson for the NSS commented: "Many faith-based charities carry out good work, but it is unclear why some groups receive charitable benefits merely for the promotion of religion, especially when they are also involved in partisan politics and the spread of sectarian hatred."
Image is a YouTube still from one of the events, with Tapan Ghosh centre and Bob Blackman MP on the right.
Discuss this on Facebook.
Conservative MP says anti-discrimination law is “unwanted”
Posted: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 15:22
A Conservative MP has criticised attempts to outlaw caste based discrimination on the basis that it is "unwanted" by the Hindu community.
Backbench Conservative MP Bob Blackman asked the Government for a statement "on the position of the promised consultation document on caste discrimination?"
Some 'high caste' Hindu activists have been resisting campaigns to explicitly outlaw discrimination on the basis of caste, and there have been extensive delays from both the current and coalition governments.
In response to Blackman's question, David Lidington MP, the Leader of the House of Commons, said he understood the matter was "very important to his constituents".
Mr Lidington added that "this particular decision involves not only a policy commitment but the allocation of legislative time," which he said was under considerable pressure from many government departments.
The Government originally promised a consultation on implementing anti-discrimination law in 2014.
The NSS described the most recent announcement, in September 2016, as "a further attempt to stall implementing what Parliament has instructed the Government to do."
The launch of the consultation was last promised for 2016 but it still has not been launched.
If and when the consultation is launched it will ask whether legislation is necessary, rather than how it should be achieved.
This is despite Parliament's requirement and a UN recommendation from 2016 to invoke the relevant section of the Equality Act "without further delay to ensure that caste-based discrimination is explicitly prohibited under law and that victims of this form of discrimination have access to effective remedies".
Mr Blackman claimed that the consultation "will allow the Hindu community in particular the opportunity to put its perspective on why this unwanted, unnecessary and ill-judged legislation can be removed from the statute book."
Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the National Secular Society, said: "Caste discrimination legislation is a further example that the Government's obsession with parliamentary sovereignty does not extend to anything the Government does not want to do.
"Its procrastination since the enabling power in 2010 and refusal to act since required to do so in 2013 show a contempt by the Executive for Parliament to which it should be accountable.
"Similarly, its refusal to abide by numerous UN recommendations to follow our international treaty obligations set an appalling international example, especially for a Government whose PM is keen to assure the world it is committed to the rule of law.
"A government report has shown there to be caste discrimination in Britain. The sad truth is that despite the PM's stated concern for people not to be disadvantaged by their racial background, the Government seem much more interested in listening to high caste Hindus who do not want legislation than listening to those who are discriminated against. We have no evidence that the Government have ever sought to listen to the victims. We would not seek misogynists' approval to legislate on sex discrimination."
