Rethinking religion and belief in public life: a manifesto for change
The time has come to rethink religion's public role in order to ensure equality and fairness for believers and non-believers alike, says a major new report launched by the National Secular Society.
The report says that Britain's "drift away from Christianity" coupled with the rise in minority religions and increasing non-religiosity demands a "long term, sustainable settlement on the relationship between religion and the state".
Rethinking religion and belief in public life: a manifesto for change has been sent to all MPs as part of a major drive by the Society to encourage policymakers and citizens of all faiths and none to find common cause in promoting principles of secularism.
It calls for Britain to evolve into a secular democracy with a clear separation between religion and state and criticises the prevailing multi-faithist approach as being "at odds with the increasing religious indifference" in Britain.
Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society president, said: "Vast swathes of the population are simply not interested in religion, it doesn't play a part in their lives, but the state refuses to recognise this.
"Britain is now one of the most religiously diverse and, at the same time, non-religious nations in the world. Rather than burying its head in the sand, the state needs to respond to these fundamental cultural changes. Our report sets out constructive and specific proposals to fundamentally reform the role of religion in public life to ensure that every citizen can be treated fairly and valued equally, irrespective of their religious outlook."
Read the report:
Rethinking religion and belief in public life: a manifesto for change
Add your endorsement to the manifesto for change
Add your endorsementComplete list of recommendations
Our changing society – Multiculturalism, secularism and group identity
1. The Government should continue to move away from multiculturalism and instead emphasise individual rights and social cohesion. A multi-faith approach should be avoided.
2. The UK is a secularised society which upholds freedom of and from religion. We urge politicians to consider this, and refrain from using "Christian country" rhetoric.
The role of religion in schools
Faith schools
3. There should be a moratorium on the opening of any new publicly funded faith schools.
4. Government policy should ultimately move towards a truly inclusive secular education system in which religious organisations play no formal role in the state education system.
5. Religion should be approached in schools like politics: with neutrality, in a way that informs impartially and does not teach views.
6. Ultimately, no publicly funded school should be statutorily permitted, as they currently are, to promote a particular religious position or seek to inculcate pupils into a particular faith.
7. In the meantime, pupils should have a statutory entitlement to education in a non-religiously affiliated school.
8. No publicly funded school should be permitted to prioritise pupils in admissions on the basis of baptism, religious affiliation or the religious activities of a child's parent(s).
9. Schools should not be able to discriminate against staff on the basis of religion or belief, sexual orientation or any other protected characteristics.
Religious education
10. Faith schools should lose their ability to teach about religion from their own exclusive viewpoint and the law should be amended to reflect this.
11. The Government should undertake a review of Religious Education with a view to reforming the way religion and belief is taught in all schools.
12. The teaching of religion should not be prioritised over the teaching of non-religious worldviews, and secular philosophical approaches.
13. The Government should consider making religion and belief education a constituent part of another area of the curriculum or consider a new national subject for all pupils that ensures all pupils study of a broad range of religious and non-religious worldviews, possibly including basic philosophy.
14. The way in which the RE curriculum is constructed by Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education (SACREs) is unique, and seriously outdated. The construction and content of any subject covering religion or belief should be determined by the same process as other subjects after consultation with teachers, subject communities, academics, employers, higher education institutions and other interested parties (who should have no undue influence or veto).
Sex and relationships education
15. All children and young people, including pupils at faith schools, should have a statutory entitlement to impartial and age-appropriate sex and relationships education, from which they cannot be withdrawn.
Collective worship
16. The legal requirement on schools to provide Collective Worship should be abolished.
17. The Equality Act exception related to school worship should be repealed. Schools should be under a duty to ensure that all aspects of the school day are inclusive.
18. Both the law and guidance should be clear that under no circumstances should pupils be compelled to worship and children's right to religious freedom should be fully respected by all schools.
19. Where schools do hold acts of worship pupils should themselves be free to choose not to take part.
20. If there are concerns that the abolition of the duty to provide collective worship would signal the end of assemblies, the Government may wish to consider replacing the requirement to provide worship with a requirement to hold inclusive assemblies that further pupils' 'spiritual, moral, social and cultural education'.
Independent schooling
21. All schools should be registered with the Department for Education and as a condition of registration must meet standards set out in regulations.
22. Government must ensure that councils are identifying suspected illegal, unregistered religious schools so that Ofsted can inspect them. The state must have an accurate register of where every child is being educated.
Freedom of expression - Freedom of expression, blasphemy and the media
23. Any judicial or administrative attempt to further restrict free expression on the grounds of 'combatting extremism' should be resisted. Threatening behaviour and incitement to violence is already prohibited by law. Further measures would be an illiberal restriction of others' right to freedom of expression. They are also likely to be counterproductive by insulating extremist views from the most effective deterrents: counterargument and criticism.
24. Proscriptions of "blasphemy" must not be introduced by stealth, legislation, fear or on the spurious grounds of 'offence'. There can be no right to be protected from offence in an open and free secular society.
25. The fundamental value of free speech should be instilled throughout the education system and in all schools.
26. Universities and other further education bodies should be reminded of their statutory obligations to protect freedom of expression under the Education (No 2) Act 1986.
Religion and the law
Civil rights, 'conscience clauses' and religious freedom
27. We are opposed in principle to the creation of a 'conscience clause' which would permit discrimination against (primarily) LGBT people. This is of particular concern in Northern Ireland.
28. Religious freedom must not be taken to mean or include a right to discriminate. Businesses providing goods and services, regardless of owners' religious views, must obey the law.
29. Equality legislation must not be rolled back in order to appease a minority of religious believers whose views are out-of-touch with the majority of the general public and their co-religionists.
30. The UK Government should impose changes on the rest of the UK in order to comply with Human Rights obligations. Every endeavour should be made by to extend same sex marriage and abortion access to Northern Ireland.
Conscience 'opt-outs' in healthcare
31. Efforts to unreasonably extend the legal concept of 'reasonable accommodation' and conscience to give greater protection in healthcare to those expressing a (normally religious) objection should be resisted.
32. Conscience opt-outs should not be granted where their operation impinges adversely on the rights of others.
33. Pharmacists' codes should not permit conscience opts out for pharmacists that result in denial of service, as this may cause harm. NHS contracts should reflect this.
34. Consideration should be given to legislative changes to enforce the changes to pharmacists codes recommended above.
The use of tribunals by religious minorities
35. The legal system must not be undermined. Action must be taken to ensure that none of the councils currently in operation misrepresent themselves as sources of legal authority.
36. Work should be undertaken by local authorities to identify sharia councils, and official figures should be made available to measure the number of sharia councils in the UK to help understand the extent of their influence.
37. There needs to be a continuing review by the Government of the extent to which religious 'law', including religious marriage without civil marriage, is undermining human rights and/or becoming de facto law. The Government must be proactive in proposing solutions to ensure all citizens are able to access their legal rights.
38. All schools should promote understanding of citizenship and legal rights under UK law so that people – particularly Muslim women and girls – are aware of and able to access their legal rights and do not regard religious 'courts' as sources of genuine legal authority.
Religious exemptions from animal welfare laws
39. Laws intended to minimise animal suffering should not be the subject of religious exemptions. Non-stun slaughter should be prohibited and existing welfare at slaughter legislation should apply without exception.
40. For as long as non-stun slaughter is permitted, all meat and meat products derived from animals killed under the religious exemption should be obliged to show the method of slaughter.
41. In public institutions it should be unlawful not to provide a stunned alternative to non-stun meat produce.
Religion and public services
Social action by religious organisations
42. The Equality Act should be amended to suspend the exemptions for religious groups when they are working under public contract on behalf of the state.
43. Legislation should be introduced so that contractors delivering general public services on behalf of a public authority are defined as public authorities explicitly for those activities, making them subject to the Human Rights Act legislation.
44. It should be mandatory for all contracts with religious providers of publicly-funded services to have unambiguous equality, non-discrimination and non-proselytising clauses in them.
45. Public records of contracts with religious groups should be maintained and appropriate measures for monitoring their compliance with equality and human rights legislation should be put in place.
46. There should be an enforcement mechanism for the above, which would for example receive and adjudicate on complaints without complainants having to take legal action.
Hospital chaplaincy
47. Religious care should not be funded through NHS budgets.
48. No NHS post should be conditional on the patronage of religious authorities, nor subject directly or indirectly to discriminatory provisions, for example on sexual orientation or marital status.
49. Alternative funding, such as via a charitable trust, could be explored if religions wish to retain their representation in hospitals.
50. Hospitals wishing to employ staff to provide pastoral, emotional and spiritual care for patients, families and staff should do so within a secular context.
Institutions and public ceremonies
Disestablishment
51. The Church of England should be disestablished
52. The Bishops' Bench should be removed from the House of Lords. Any future Second Chamber should have no representation for religion whether ex-officio or appointed, whether of Christian denominations or any other faith. This does not amount to a ban on clerics; they would eligible for selection on the same basis as others.
Remembrance
53. The Remembrance Day commemoration ceremony at the Cenotaph should become secular in character. Ceremonies should be led by national or civic leaders and there should be a period of silence for participants to remember the fallen in their own way, be that religious or not.
Monarchy and religion
54. The ceremony to mark the accession of a new head of state should take place in the seat of representative secular democracy, such as in Westminster Hall and should not be religious.
55. The monarch should no longer be required to be in communion with the Church of England nor ex officio be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the title "Defender of the Faith" should not be retained.
Parliamentary prayers
56. We believe Parliament should reflect the country as it is today and remove acts of worship from the formal business of the House.
Local democracy and religious observance
57. Acts of religious worship should play no part in the formal business of parliamentary or local authority meetings.
Public broadcasting, the BBC and religion
58. The BBC should rename Thought for the Day 'Religious thought for the day' and move it away from Radio 4's flagship news programme and into a more suitable timeslot reflecting its niche status. Alternatively it could reform it and open it up to non-religious contributors.
59. The extent and nature of religious programming should reflect the religion and belief demographics of the UK.
Add your endorsement to the manifesto for change
Add your endorsementThe 2017 General Election
All children should have the right to refuse circumcision
A judge has ruled that a boy who was taken into care shouldn't be subjected to non-consensual, non-therapeutic genital cutting. This is welcome, says Megan Manson - but every child should have similar rights.
A court has just ruled that a toddler taken into care should not be circumcised, despite the wishes of his Muslim parents.
A one-year-old boy known as "P" was removed from his parents at birth, following concerns about abuse. He was placed in the care of his maternal aunt and uncle, who are not Muslim and who have agreed to look after P throughout his life. In November, P's mother, with his father's support, sought the court's authorisation to have P circumcised before his second birthday. However, the local authority and the child's carers disagreed.
Justice Cobb concluded that the decision to circumcise P should be deferred until he is "able to make his own choice, once he has the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and long-term effects of the decision".
This ruling is very welcome. The judge has thankfully protected P's bodily integrity and his personal freedom of religion or belief, rightly siding with the local authority and P's aunt and uncle who think this decision should be for P alone when he is ready.
But there are some troubling elements in the judgment that suggest, had some of the circumstances of the case been different, the decision may have gone the other way. While it's a relief that the judge ruled in favour of P's human rights, parts of the ruling indicate the need to reconsider the place of infant circumcision in law and society.
#1 Why use a pro-circumcision doctor for expert evidence?
The judge used expert evidence from consultant urologist Altaf Mangera. Mangera is himself a Muslim, and it appears he was chosen specifically because he could "speak as to the religious importance and timing of the procedure". Unsurprisingly, Mangera gave the opinion that if the court feels P "should be raised as a Muslim child", his parents "should be given the same rights as all other Muslim families; which is to have a circumcision at a young age". Mangera also referred to the "suggested benefits" of circumcision.
To his credit, Mangera also acknowledged that there is "divided medical opinion" about the supposed benefits of circumcision, and said that if there was any doubt as to whether or not P would be raised Muslim, the court "may wish to delay the procedure".
But the fact that a urologist appears to have been chosen as an expert on the basis of his Islamic faith is a problem. Surely a urologist consulted to provide a medical opinion on circumcision should give just that, without any religious ideology attached?
It appears medical advice given to the local authority was rather different. The LA said it "defers to the medical advice in that unless it is medically necessary that [circumcision] is something that we would not support". This would suggest the local authority's advice took a considerably less favourable stance on infant circumcision.
#2 To what extent should the "strongly held views" of parents be considered?
The mother's representative argued that the parents' "strongly held views" should carry "considerable weight", which formed part of the judge's guiding principles in his ruling. But to what extent should these override the interests of the child?
As the judge pointed out, it is hard to ascertain P's wishes and feelings on the matter given that he is only a toddler. And yet we can draw reasonable conclusions from Mangera's description of circumcision as to how he would be likely to feel about the procedure.
Mangera said circumcision for young children requires them to be restrained; not something you would require in a painless and risk-free procedure, one imagines. The judge acknowledged that circumcision would be "painful and distressing to P for a number of days or weeks". For the operation typically used for children older than two, the "most difficult factor" to deal with is "fear of the injection or the procedure", and the recovery period "would be longer".
Furthermore, both parents expressed that they would like P to be circumcised now because later he may choose not to, as he would be "deterred by the likely pain and discomfort". The judge also acknowledged that circumcision later in life would "require greater cooperation from P".
It isn't hard to conclude from this that even though P is incapable of truly understanding the implications of circumcision or communicating his feelings, he would be unlikely to want to go through with it. It's also not hard to conclude that the parents want P to have the procedure now partly because he is incapable of resisting.
If evidence suggests that P is more likely than not to be distressed by a medically unnecessary and permanent procedure, and to refuse it as soon as he is old enough to do so, should the feelings of the parents really trump the child's?
#3 Does the Children Act need some revising?
Much of the judge's decision appeared to hang on Section 33 of the Children Act 1989, a piece of legislation designed to protect children's welfare. The specific section of the act quoted by the judge says:
"While a care order is in force with respect to a child, the local authority designated by the order shall not cause the child to be brought up in any religious persuasion other than that in which he would have been brought up if the order had not been made."
This is no doubt intended to prevent children from being indoctrinated into a religion different to that in which they were raised, which could create tension and hostility between parents and carers. However, P's case highlights problems with this law.
Although P has lived with non-Muslim carers since birth, Section 33 appears to place a duty on local authorities to ensure the carers raise P within his parents' Islamic religion. The carers have in fact been doing this; in contrast, P's parents have done nothing to support raising P in their religion, apart from insist that he be circumcised.
The judge said it is "important that P retains, and is allowed to develop an interest in, the profound and rich tenets of the Islamic faith". The word "retains" here in particular raises eyebrows. It assumes that P has somehow internalised the tenets of Islam by virtue of being born to Muslim parents. And what if, at a young age, P decides he isn't interested in Islam, or he prefers to emulate his aunt and uncle's beliefs? Does Section 33 still compel the local authority to continue teaching him about Islam, and prohibit the carers from letting P share in their beliefs? This would effectively inhibit children in care from exploring different beliefs and making up their own minds about what to believe.
Thankfully, the judge determined that Section 33 does not require the local authority to hand P over for circumcision. But things may have been different if P's parents were Jewish. The judgment noted that although P's circumcision may represent an important component of his religious heritage, circumcision is "recommended not obligatory" in Islam.
While circumcision may not be a central requirement in Islam, most Jewish sects consider it an obligation to circumcise baby boys, preferably when they are eight days old. Had P's parents been Jewish, would Section 33 have compelled the judge to rule differently?
It would be concerning if the degree to which circumcision is considered a requirement in a religious or cultural tradition is a factor in deciding whether parents should be permitted to circumcise their children. It would lead to people of different faiths being treated differently before the law. And it could potentially open the door to other harmful religious practices being permitted, if it can be demonstrated those practices are sufficiently central to religious teachings.
#4 The bigger picture: All children should be protected from non-consensual circumcision
P has escaped a painful, permanent and medically unnecessary procedure that is also risky. In the US, where most circumcisions are performed under clinical conditions, over 100 babies die from circumcision complications every year. And in 2011, nearly a dozen infant boys were treated for life-threatening haemorrhage, shock or sepsis as a result of non-therapeutic circumcision at a single children's hospital in Birmingham.
There's a deep disparity in the relevant laws protecting children. Girls are protected from all forms of genital cutting, even forms less invasive than typical male circumcision, by the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. But there are no laws that protect boys from unwanted cutting to their genitals.
This disparity even led to contradictory remarks in the judge's ruling. He said the court will be "slow to conclude that a parent faithfully striving to follow the teachings of their religion is acting unreasonably", but also said it "can never be reasonable parenting to inflict any form of FGM on a child". Parents who do cut their girls' genitals frequently cite perceived religious obligations as the justification. So why do we treat male and female genital cutting differently?
The bottom line is this: nobody, regardless of sex or religious background, should be subjected to non-therapeutic genital cutting without their express consent. Certainly, no child should undergo such a procedure while they are too young to give informed consent.
P has been allowed to grow up and make the decision to retain or lose his foreskin when he is old enough to do so. All boys should be allowed the same choice. We shouldn't question the right of parents to circumcise their children only when a dispute arises – we should question it in every single case.
Image by Esi Grünhagen from Pixabay.
Evidence and compassion should trump dogma in assisted dying debate
As politicians again grapple with assisted dying, we should beware attempts to impose a religious worldview on those who want the option of alleviating their suffering, argues Stephen Evans.
Bills to legalise assisted dying have again been lodged both at the Scottish and Westminster parliaments, raising hopes of a political breakthrough.
In Scotland, proposals to introduce the right to an assisted death for terminally ill, mentally competent adults have been brought forward by Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, with the support of a cross-party group of MSPs. Meanwhile, the UK parliament will soon consider a private member's bill from crossbench peer Molly Meacher to "legalise assisted dying as a choice for terminally ill, mentally competent adults in their final months of life".
By her own admission, Baroness Meacher's bill is "modest in its scope". Two independent doctors and a High Court judge would have to assess each request, which if granted would enable a terminally ill person with six months or less left to live, to end their life in a manner, time and place of their choosing.
Despite the bill's narrow scope and stringent safeguards, it is likely to face dogged opposition, with organised religion leading the charge.
Some of that opposition is likely to come from a new all-party parliamentary group on "dying well", set up to "stand against the legalisation of assisted suicide" and "promote access to excellent care at the end of life".
The group's website makes no mention of religion. But it's striking that the vast majority of its officers appear to be committed Christians.
Beneath all their secular rationale against assisted dying, is there perhaps a desire to impose a Christian worldview on the general populace?
Legal reforms to allow choice at the end of life can be seen as part of the much larger struggle against religious authority and the idea that life and death are for God alone to determine.
If you think God is (or should be) supremely in control, the societal shift towards respect for individual autonomy may be problematic. But in a secularised society, biblical perspectives and faith-based 'sanctity of life' arguments hold little sway. As the former second church estates commissioner (the parliamentary go-between between church and state) Caroline Spelman complained during the 2015 House of Lords debate on assisted dying: "The view that life is a gift from God with all that it entails, including pain and suffering, and that it is not for us to bring it to an end, is perceived to be at odds with the prevailing view of our rights, including a perceived right to end our own life." Therefore, religious opponents of assisted dying increasingly cite secular 'slippery slope' concerns instead, warning of widespread abuse of vulnerable people.
Such concerns may be legitimate but can surely be addressed by carefully thought through safeguards – tried and tested elsewhere, in other jurisdictions where forms of assisted dying are permitted. There's space for reasonable discussion over the impact of these safeguards and how far they should reach. But where politicians doggedly insist that it's impossible to apply them, it suggests an unwillingness to respect individual autonomy in any circumstances. This is a hallmark of attempts to impose a religious agenda on those who don't share it.
Faith-based opposition to assisted dying also leans heavily on improvements to palliative care, arguing that better 'end of life' care means nobody need die an agonising, drawn-out, undignified death. But as My Death, My Decision's campaign policy director, Phil Cheatle, has pointed out: "Palliative care is a wonderful service that helps many people – and could help even more with increased funding. But even the best palliative care cannot help in all situations." An insistence that it can may again be an indicator that religious objections are at the root of the opposition.
Organised religion has long been a barrier to progressive reforms. The last time assisted dying was considered in Westminster, the archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, the archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols and the chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis led a multifaith coalition of faith leaders in opposing the bill.
But as with many other ethical questions, such as reproductive rights, the pontifications of religious leaders are often at odds with the views of those in the pews.
A Populus survey commissioned in 2019 found that 80% of religious people supported the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill adults with mental capacity. And a recent poll found that 53% people of faith felt religious leaders were wrong to campaign against the last assisted dying bill, while just 22% felt it was right.
And now, a new 'religious alliance for dignity in dying' has been formed to challenge the perception that religious people are universally against assisted dying.
The group's chair, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, said: "We must puncture the myth that religious people oppose assisted dying. Anti-choice religious leaders and groups don't speak for the majority. We must work together to make the compassionate case for assisted dying."
The former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey is also part of the alliance. He says he's "painfully aware" that he's out of step with other Christian leaders "although, ironically, in step with the vast number of Christians who see the need for change".
As polarised as we may sometimes appear as a society, there is broad consensus on assisted dying.
Religious and non-religious people may find themselves torn between the instinct to sustain life and the wish to alleviate suffering. But as citizens and lawmakers grapple with these important questions, we need to ensure we're being guided by evidence and compassion, rather than religious dogma.
This isn't easy to guarantee in a country so steeped in religious privilege – where bishops enjoy seats as of right in the legislature, faith leaders are routinely treated with deference by the media and schools exist to promote religious worldviews.
Everyone should of course have their say. But religious leaders don't have a monopoly on morality. And we should beware attempts to impose their view of morality on those who want the option of an assisted death.
Image: Photographee.eu/Shutterstock.com.
The expansion of Catholic influence at St Mary’s University threatens academic freedom
A pro-vice chancellor's remarks suggest the governance of St Mary's University, Twickenham is heading in an inappropriate direction. This shows the need to oppose religious control of universities, says Keith Sharpe.
In introducing his recent bill to defend freedom of speech in universities the secretary of state for education, Gavin Williamson, spoke of the "chilling effect of censorship", expressing concern about 'cancel culture' and 'deplatforming' as a means of limiting freedom of expression.
I have previously drawn attention to the 15 publicly-funded faith universities in the UK. The governing bodies of these universities are dominated by ex-officio members of a church rather than individuals appointed according to Nolan principles of public service. How can a governing body chaired by and comprised primarily of individuals whose first allegiance is to the doctrines of a particular religious organisation be confident that this does not influence the values of the university they govern?
One way in which the governors of faith universities can limit freedom of speech and introduce religious censorship is in the appointment of their vice-chancellor, requiring candidates to be practising members of the church which dominates the institution's governance. This not only excludes many able candidates who do not share the governors' beliefs, but implies an intention to shape that institution in accordance with the governors' own particular religious doctrine.
This potential risk now seems to have become a reality, at least in one faith university. Francis Campbell was appointed vice-chancellor of St Mary's University, Twickenham in 2014 and set about making the university properly Catholic. In a recent podcast in the Spectator series 'Holy Smoke' the pro-vice chancellor for academic strategy at St. Mary's, Professor John Charmley who was appointed by Campbell, explained exactly what properly Catholic means.
First, a new post of 'director of Catholic mission' was created to promote Catholic doctrine amongst the staff and students because everybody needs to understand that "we are all children of God" and because St Mary's must work "to revive and serve the church". This is utterly inappropriate. It is not the business of any university maintained at public expense to "serve the church" or to promulgate particular belief systems. Furthermore, such a limited view of the purpose of publicly-funded education countermands the government's policy of enhancing access and participation from all parts of society.
Second, and perhaps more astonishingly, Professor Charmley went on to say that he wanted Catholic values to be embodied "in all disciplines", not just Theology. "It is our role to emphasise the eternal verities," he declared.
This is deeply worrying. The 'eternal verities' Professor Charmley refers to are not evidenced truths; they are 'revealed' truths - the doctrines of his church, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ. The university seems to be expecting all lecturers to interpret and present their subject matter in the light of Catholic doctrine. How would this imposition distort teaching and research in history or literature, for example, or biology and human evolution? In the 21st century every university should be a place of independent and free inquiry in which students are taught to think for themselves and challenge conventional wisdom based on evidence, and in which all are at liberty to pursue knowledge and truth openly without constraint.
In contrast, Professor Charmley seems to favour sustaining particular doctrines that he and the governors of St Mary's hold dear. Free speech in universities requires that academics and scholars can express unorthodox views and do not have to comply with any doctrine. Indeed, registration by the Office for Students requires that academic staff at an English higher education provider have freedom within the law to "question and test received wisdom" and "put forward new ideas and controversial and unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy". It does not seem that St Mary's intends to meet these conditions.
The governors at St Mary's, and senior staff such as Professor Charmley, appear to place allegiance to the doctrines of their church above their duties to the university for which they are responsible. These policies should be recognised for what they are and resisted by staff and students alike. They should also be reviewed by the Office for Students, to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech in our universities.
Image: Statues overlooking the park at St Mary's University, Twickenham. © AndyScott, via Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 4.0]
Charity law shouldn’t enable misogyny
A Christian organisation which pushes misogynistic messages, including by blaming women for rape, has registered as a charity. This highlights a widespread problem which needs legal reform to address, says Megan Manson.
A religious organisation that says "female trousers are the uniform of harlots" has just become a registered charity.
Holiness Revival Movement Worldwide Europe (or 'Horemow Europe') is a Christian organisation that registered with the Charity Commission for England & Wales at the end of May. And it has a real problem with women who wear trousers.
One of the many anti-trouser rants on its website by Pastor Paul Rika says "women wear trousers because of the spirit of whoredom" and that if a woman wears "a godly skirt or gown, it does not entice or seduce any man".
The tone of the blog goes from ridiculous to creepy. Pastor Rika says wearing trousers helps women "to market her commodity to get the opposite sex aroused as they view the shape of her private part" and enables "their buttocks to appear bare, tight and seductive."
If that wasn't sinister enough, Rika continues: "Because men are naturally moved by what they see, the tendency is for them to be aroused when they see a woman in trouser (sic) walk by.
"With the exception of a few that can resist such a pull, their minds will be on what their eyes have fed on and they will continue to think about the private part of that women."
These statements already have the trappings of 'rape culture' – they promote the idea that women should dress 'modestly' because of the uncontrollable feelings of sexual desire they may otherwise induce in men. But in case there was any doubt, a tract on the website explicitly blames women's fashion choices for contributing to rape:
"What does it mean to look sexy anyway? It is simply to appeal for or suggest sex by the way you dress and apply make-up. No wonder there is increase in rape today and people are not addressing the real problem. You who dress like this is a strong contributor to the problem."
Unfortunately, Horemow Europe is by no means the only charity promoting misogyny.
Several other charities perpetuate deeply sexist stereotypes - including by encouraging women to stay at home and do what their husbands tell them. For example:
Croydon Mosque and Islamic Centre
A pamphlet on this charity's website says that women generally shouldn't leave their home, but if it becomes necessary (and they have their husband's permission) to do so, they should "cover everything from their head to their feet". A woman out in public should also "refrain from raising her voice unnecessarily" and her burqa "should not be decorated or attractive".
Newton Evangelical Church
A sermon on this charity's website entitled "Raising Godly Boys and Girls" tells women that "if you're blessed with a husband it means submitting to him" and being a wife "involves working at home and being kind". This charity registered this year.
The Christadelphian Sunday School Union
This charity is a Sunday school for children. One of the worksheets on its website says a woman "is subject to her father, and then to her husband". It also says: "If we are honest, most women are better than men at preparing an ecclesial supper, talking to children and old people etc. and men are, in general, better at most of the more leading roles. We should all delight in what we can do and get on with it."
Another worksheet says "We see that wives should submit to their husbands, in the same way as we should all submit to Christ".
Elsewhere it gets worse. Several Islamic charities have hosted or signposted material that endorsed or condoned violence against women. These have only been taken down after the National Secular Society raised concerns with the Charity Commission:
Ghamidi Centre of Islamic Communication
A lecture on this charity's website entitled "The Right to Beat Wives" said it was acceptable for a husband to "punish" his wife if she challenged his authority, provided it did not "leave any sign of wound" on her. This charity was registered in December 2020.
IslamBradford
This charity's website linked to an external site called 'Islam Question & Answer' on its 'Resources' page. Islam Question & Answer says the "many benefits" of female genital mutilation (FGM) include taking away "excessive libido from women" and reducing "excessive sensitivity of the clitoris" which is "very annoying to the husband, especially at the time of intercourse."
Thamesdown Islamic Association
This charity's website hosted a book, Kitabun Nikah by Hadrat Maulana Muhammad Ibrahim and Palampuri Sahab, which said a husband was allowed to subject his wife to "mild hitting". It also appeared to condone marital rape by implying a wife cannot refuse sex with her husband: "When a man calls his wife to fulfill his desires, she should come to him although she may be near a stove (cooking)."
The book also said Allah had "granted the males authority over females"; it was a husband's "responsibility" to "keep in check the character of the wife"; and a husband should "immediately caution" his wife if he found her "freely mixing and conversing with the servants of the house or other strangers".
Finally, Kitabun Nikah instructed husbands: "If the wife is literate, she should be encouraged to study Islamic literature. Never permit her to read novels, comics and other harmful literature."
Serving a genuine public benefit is a fundamental requirement to become a charity. Promoting the subjugation and abuse of women does the very opposite. It is bizarre that on the one hand, there exist so many charities set up to support women who are victims of domestic violence, FGM and rape, while on the other the Charity Commission continues to register charities that fuel the misogyny at the root of these crimes.
While in many of these cases the commission has intervened and stopped religious charities promoting misogyny, the fact that new charities advancing the same ideas continue to register regularly demonstrates that the situation is unsustainable. Under the law as it stands the commission is left trying to play whack-a-mole, which is inefficient and unreliable.
Meanwhile the more fundamental problem remains unaddressed: organisations can become charities - with all the tax benefits and public recognition this brings - solely on the basis that they are 'advancing religion'.
That's exactly what these charities are doing – they are advancing widely-held religious ideas that women belong under the control of men, as justified by interpretations of religious texts.
It's high time we rejected the outdated assumption that 'advancing religion' is inherently beneficial and therefore a charitable activity. All charities, religious or not, should be expected to uphold the rights and dignity of women. In the UK in the 21st century, this surely isn't a big ask.
The NSS has written to the Charity Commission this week to raise concerns over the registration of Horemow Europe.
The PM's Catholic wedding shows the need for a church-state divorce
In light of his Catholic wedding, Boris Johnson has handed over the duty of advising on the appointment of bishops. Megan Manson asks why the prime minister should have any business in church affairs in the first place.
A head of government will no longer advise the state religion on appointing its clerics because he got married according to the rites of a different sect.
It's a story we might expect from a distant, troubled theocracy. But it's exactly what's happened here in the United Kingdom following Boris Johnson's surprise Catholic wedding.
The wedding, coupled with Johnson's infant baptism into Catholicism, means one can convincingly argue he is a professing Catholic. And according to the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, nobody "professing the Roman Catholic religion" may advise the crown "directly or indirectly" in the appointment of Church of England bishops.
Thanks to reforms introduced when Gordon Brown was prime minister, when there's a vacancy for a bishop the prime minister no longer chooses nominations for bishops from a list. The PM's job is to pass a name which is pre-chosen by the Crown Nominations Commission to the queen. But as Joshua Rozenberg has argued, it still seems fair to say this constitutes advising the crown on the appointment, at least "indirectly".
If Johnson continued doing this, he could face being found guilty of "a high misdemeanour, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the crown". So understandably lord chancellor Robert Buckland (a practising Anglican) is taking on the job instead to avoid any potential legal cases.
The whole fiasco raises uncomfortable points about the established church's impact on our democracy.
The first point is that anti-Catholic bigotry still lingers on the statute books. The law barring Johnson from advising on bishops is explicitly anti-Catholic – a prime minister belonging to any other faith, or one of no faith, could perform this duty without breaking the law. As one No 10 source said: "It's an incredibly anachronistic thing that a Jew or a Muslim could nominate a bishop but not a Catholic."
It's by no means the only example of anti-Catholicism at work in our state. Catholics are explicitly prohibited from becoming the monarch. Indeed in 2018 Princess Alexandra of Hanover lost her place in the line of succession after deciding to become a Catholic. The coronation ceremony also has anti-Catholic overtones. The anti-Catholic discrimination within our constitution is completely at odds with our supposed values of equality and tolerance. It surely does nothing to alleviate entrenched sectarian divisions and resentment, particularly in Northern Ireland and Scotland. And it weakens our ability to speak out against state-endorsed oppression of religious minorities in other countries, such as Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan.
And perhaps the more obvious point is: what business does any government minister have in appointing bishops? It makes about as much sense as the PM advising on the next chief Druid, or the next England captain.
The state's role in appointing bishops exposes weaknesses in our constitution when antiquated laws clash with the realities of the 21st century UK's pluralistic society. It also creates a convoluted process for the church - which would arguably be better served by disestablishment, as it would have the independence to pursue its mission without state interference.
The relationship between the head of government and the bishops serves as a reminder of the bishops' unique position within parliament. Twenty-six C of E bishops are granted specially reserved seats in the House of Lords as of right. Iran is the only other country to automatically grant seats to clerics in its legislature. The Anglican bishops wield power both in terms of their ability to vote on issues ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage, and their access to key decision-makers in the corridors of Westminster. Their presence in the House of Lords is an anti-democratic elephant in the room.
Handing the job of advising on bishops over to Buckland saves the government from the task of tackling these knotty problems. It's a fudge, and it's one that will probably work for the time being.
But other fudges made to accommodate the established church are getting harder to ignore - and have a more direct impact on people in Britain. Consider, for example, why one third of our state schools are (mostly C of E) faith schools, and why we have laws requiring Christian collective worship in all state schools. In the increasingly irreligious and religiously diverse society of the UK, the discriminatory nature of faith schools and collective worship stands out like a sore thumb.
Once again this stems back to the church's ties to the state. This is all made possible thanks to the raft of exemptions put in the Equality Act 2010 in order to avoid the question of religion in schools. During the drafting of the act the Joint Commission on Human Rights, which played a key role, recommended the government "revisit" the collective worship law. It also pointed out the incompatibility of allowing faith schools to discriminate on religious grounds in their admissions criteria.
But rather than tackle this issue head-on by challenging the Church of England's role in state education, the government opted to create exemptions in the act that would give the church and other religious organisations free rein to discriminate against children on the basis of religion or belief. It opted for a fudge, to prop up the status quo and to avoid confronting the more challenging, fundamental problems caused by the relationship between church and state.
Over half the British population have no religion. Little more than 10% are affiliated with the Church of England, including only one per cent of 18-24 year olds. Prior to the pandemic less than two per cent of the population regularly attended C of E church services. With every passing day the UK is outgrowing the established church, whose privileged place in our democracy looks increasingly unsustainable.
The problems caused by Johnson's apparent Catholicism acutely highlight the conflict between the ancient codes directly flowing from the establishment of the church, and the modern concept of human rights and equality for all. There is simply no getting away from the fact that you cannot simultaneously have a state religion, and a democracy that treats all citizens of all religion and belief backgrounds equally. The problems the PM's marriage has highlighted should prompt divorce proceedings between church and state.
Image: 10 Downing Street, OGL 3, via Wikimedia Commons
Requires improvement: Ofsted review shows need for a major rethink on RE
A review has highlighted significant problems with the way RE is taught. Alastair Lichten argues that it shows the need to ask fundamental questions about the purpose of education about religion.
Ofsted recently published a subject level review of religious education, the first since its 2013 review found that the structures of local determination underpinning the subject were not fit for purpose. In the years since there has been a plethora of initiatives, commissions and reports calling for fundamental reform of the subject. Unfortunately, there is little in this review to suggest this has impacted practice in schools.
Given Ofsted's remit, the report is more limited than some which have looked at the subject. It says nothing about the poor public perception of RE. Because of the Section 48 'religiosity inspections' regime, Ofsted cannot inspect confessional RE in many faith schools.
But the review strongly suggests that the lack of an agreed pedagogical approach, aims and knowledge base for the subject is holding it back at all levels. In particular the review finds that approaches are often unscholarly because clear curriculum aims are not identified or because teachers pick approaches to fit content, rather than content to fit an overall pedagogy. While the freedom of teachers to create innovative lessons and try different approaches is important, the report finds that activities are often selected because they are perceived to be "engaging" or fun, without any clear curricular links.
Many religious groups resist what they perceive as an overly secular sociological approach to the study of religion. Philosophy of religion is also a powerful tool, though not suitable for analysing all topics within the subject and rarely utilised before key stage five. However, Ofsted recommends that different "ways of knowing", which could be translated as tools or approaches to study, be developed among all ages. This could be made more difficult when other less scholarly approaches or those only suited to particular religious traditions, such as theology and efforts to look at religions exclusively on their own terms, are encouraged - particularly in faith schools.
The review finds plenty of examples of positive coverage of religion being prioritised over critical approaches. This is explicitly called "unscholarly" and repeatedly contrasted with best practices.
Teaching about controversies where religion intrudes on the rights of others is often popular with students - although the report argues an excessive focus on this can give students a distorted view.
Legislation in England requires that RE syllabi "reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain". The report finds that this should be a starting point not a prescription, but that it can "unintentionally cause tensions", in disputes over how much time should be devoted to different religious or nonreligious traditions.
For example, it points out that "unfortunately, some leaders interpret the legislation in percentage terms, for example by devoting 51% of RE to the study of Christianity and 49% to 'other religions'". In many schools, particularly those with a religious designation, this can be even more unbalanced. For example, the Catholic Education Service estimates that 85-90% of RE curriculum time at key stage four should be devoted to Catholicism. Many Church of England dioceses require two thirds or more of RE content to be focused on Christianity. Such denominational RE has a wide impact on the subject but is beyond Ofsted's review.
The report finds that "simply covering a greater number of religious and non-religious traditions (as inclusive as that sounds) is no guarantee of a high-quality RE curriculum". But for too long there has been a belief that criticism of bias in the subject can be headed off through adding more diverse positive coverage. This only reinforces what I call the advertising space approach.
This can create particular problems when external speakers or groups are invited into schools. As the report says, such visits by faith (it does not add "or belief") representatives can "be valuable experiences for pupils because they are genuine and organic". However, "sometimes teachers can be unclear about the curriculum object". These visits can be exploited by external groups for inappropriate evangelism and teachers are often either not expected to or not prepared to set appropriate boundaries.
The disconnect between the ambitions of Ofsted and reformers on the one hand, and what actually happens in RE on the other, is only growing. Too often practitioners - from teachers to subject leaders and resource creators - work forward from what they would like to do, to find a purpose for the subject. This gets things the wrong way round and serves the interests of religious groups, rather than those of children and society.
If we want to change that, we need to be prepared to ask more fundamental questions about the purpose of education about religion - and how it fits within the wider curriculum. We need to be prepared for truly radical reform.
Image: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com.
Is the C of E ashamed of discrimination in school admissions?
Research suggests the Church of England downplays the extent of religious discrimination in admissions to the schools it runs. Its embarrassment shows the need to end this practice, says Alastair Lichten.
There is a widespread misconception, encouraged by the Church of England, that 'its' faith schools are open to all and do not religiously discriminate in admissions.
Like the C of E's efforts to avoid church schools being described as faith schools, efforts to downplay or obfuscate discriminatory admissions have various motivations.
Firstly, it is true that compared to other faith – but not community ethos – schools, C of E schools practice far lower levels of religious selection and are more interested in reaching beyond their own faith community.
Secondly, the C of E is more relaxed about efforts to reduce religious selection in admissions - although again only when compared to other faith groups. There are also voices within the church itself calling for a total end to religious selection.
Thirdly, and a cynic might say most importantly, the C of E simply recognises that religious discrimination in admissions is deeply unpopular, particularly in new school proposals.
For example, a new C of E faith school has been proposed in Kingston upon Thames. The local diocese claims the school will be open "to all faiths and no faith", and "children from families of any faith or no faith will be able to gain admission". This downplays the fact that up to a third of places will be selected based on religion. Similar language has been used in other C of E school proposals.
A row in the local press in Oldham this week has been revealing for similar reasons. Those behind a proposal to open a discriminatory C of E faith school have claimed its admissions policy is "specifically designed to be very inclusive". Local campaigners have rightly criticised these claims.
So, does the rhetoric match the reality? We looked at a random sample of 110 C of E schools' admissions policies to examine the extent of these practices. We found that 44 of those schools – 40% – had some sort of religious discrimination or selection in their admissions. And eight of those schools used potentially misleading language to obfuscate or downplay their religious selection.
Several schools emphasised how open they were to children from the local area, even when that was a low priority within their admissions criteria. For example:
- A school which said "admissions are prioritised for siblings and children living nearest to the school before offering places more widely". In reality, locality was fifth on its list of admissions criteria, below attendance at either a specific church, or any local Christian church.
- A school which claimed it "serves the local community and extends a warm welcome to all children whose parents live or work in the area". In reality, locality was seventh on its list of admissions criteria, below three other religiously selective criteria.
- A school which said "not being a church goer will not prevent your children from having a place", "you don't have to be a Christian or attend church to apply for a place", and "we welcome all children (of any & no faith)". In reality, locality was sixth on its list of admissions criteria, below attendance at either a specific church, or any local Christian church.
Other examples included:
- A school that said it was "inclusive" and it "welcomes children from all backgrounds". In reality, if it was oversubscribed, its criteria for admission included: "A commitment to the ethos of the Church of England. The criteria for this will be a letter from a minister confirming attendance of at least three times per year."
- A school that said: "We welcome children of all faiths or no faith". In reality, its oversubscription criteria give priority to those whose parents are "either practising members of the Church of England or practising members of another Christian denomination".
- A school that said: "We are a school rooted in the community and welcome applications from all." In reality a third of places at the school are foundation places (subject to specific religious selection) and for the remaining places locality is the bottom criterion, below attendance at specific local churches.
Defenders of these discriminatory practices may protest that they do not preclude those of other faith backgrounds from gaining places. They may claim that prioritising those of specific faiths does not indicate that those of other or no faith backgrounds are not welcome at all. And they may say that in practice undersubscription and low levels of religious adherence mean selection is lower than policies would theoretically permit.
These excuses are not always relevant, but they are always unpersuasive. A school which reserves the right to discriminate sends a damaging message, regardless of the extent it does so in practice.
In undersubscribed faith schools, discriminatory admissions criteria may not be applied. However, this increases the opposite problem of pupils being assigned faith schools against their families' wishes.
And our researchers also found that in 13 of the schools, language strongly suggested that parents would have to accept all aspects of the school's religious ethos. Examples included:
- "The governors welcome applications from all members of the community and ask all parents to respect the Christian ethos of the school and its importance to the community. Therefore, the governors hope that all pupils will take part in the Christian worship of the school and will attend Religious Education lessons."
- "Governors hope that parents who have chosen this school for their child have done so with the knowledge that it is a Church of England school with a distinctive Christian ethos. Governors, therefore, expect parents to give their full support to the ethos of the school."
- "We ask all parents applying for a place here to respect the ethos and its importance to the school community."
Parents attempting to withdraw their children from confessional religious education or collective worship often find such language is used to claim they have accepted all aspects of the school ethos. This can further dissuade non-Christian families, regardless of admissions.
Many may also assume that C of E faith schools will probably have voluntary controlled (VC as opposed to voluntary aided, VA) status. VC schools can only rarely religiously select, when permitted by their local authority. But there are 90% as many VA C of E faith schools as VC ones: 1,443 and 1,604, respectively. And in 2017 researchers found that 69% of C of E secondary schools practice some form of religious selection, affecting 50% of places across these schools.
Organising a school around an exclusive religious ethos fundamentally undermines claims of inclusivity. However, genuinely open admissions can at least reduce social segregation and force greater efforts towards inclusion.
The C of E is clearly embarrassed enough about religious selection to try sweeping it under the rug. It's time it was consigned to the dustbin.
Image: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com.
The outcome of the Batley investigation is a surrender of liberal principles
As an investigation into the Batley Grammar affair concludes, Stephen Evans says we should recognise the censorious precedent it has set.
Earlier this year a number of teachers were suspended after an image of the prophet Muhammad was used in a lesson to initiate a discussion about blasphemy at Batley Grammar School in West Yorkshire.
Pupils were forced out of school as angry protesters gathered at the gates demanding action against one of the teachers for 'offending' "the whole Muslim community". Some protesters accused him of stirring up anti-Muslim hatred.
The school's head teacher apologised "unequivocally" and sought to placate the protestors by saying the use of the image was "totally inappropriate". Meanwhile, one teacher and his family were forced into hiding after receiving threats.
An independent investigation launched by the academy trust behind the school has now concluded. It's found that the image was used for an "educational purpose" to benefit students and was not used with the intention of causing offence. The suspensions have been lifted – and rightly so.
Everyone's primary concern should be for the safety and wellbeing of the teacher at the centre of this and his family. We should hope they can now move on and rebuild their lives. I would be surprised if the teacher returns to the school.
But we should also recognise that the investigators have given the protesters what they craved by imposing a de facto blasphemy code on the school.
The executive summary of the investigation says: "It is not necessary for staff to use the material in question to deliver the learning outcomes on the subject of blasphemy; or any such images of the type used… in any trust RS lessons, or any other lessons."
Nobody claimed it was "necessary". But if you're teaching about blasphemy and freedom of expression, you may reasonably think the most effective way of exploring this subject involves using images that have caused controversy. You may also think that if you don't show them, pupils will look them up on the internet anyway, and the best environment for this learning is a teacher facilitated discussion. Teachers appreciate the diversity of their students and can foster civility to ensure students learn about sensitive topics in authentic, sensitive, engaging and meaningful ways.
On a fundamental point, the outcome of this investigation represents a capitulation to the mob. The reason this school and others won't use such resources again is not because they aren't educationally justified, but because they don't want to cause offence. Not because they aren't conducive to learning, but because of the threat of disruption and violence. This is how a de facto blasphemy law works.
Right from the start, the National Secular Society urged the government to take the lead on this issue. We warned that treating it as little more than a local dispute would leave the investigation more vulnerable to pressure from assertive, intolerant religious voices.
And that has now happened. The outcome of the investigation has been influenced by unreasonable religious demands and intimidation and threats from religious extremists.
In many ways, the trust's response is a clever fudge. It endeavours to conciliate between the various parties by offering them all something, while selling out on liberal, secularist principles. It says it's committed to "ensuring offence is not caused". This is a route to censorship that sets a very dangerous precedent.
And the outcome of this local investigation will inevitably affect teachers' ability to do their jobs across the country. One trainee teacher at Manchester Metropolitan University who expressed concern over the weak response to the Batley Grammar affair and said he would be willing to use images of religious figures in class has already been called to a 'fitness to practise' meeting.
Teachers have been given the message that they should censor themselves. And that message could be relevant on any other number of sensitive subjects where well-organised and vocal groups could take offence.
When the incident first happened the Department for Education said it was "never acceptable to threaten or intimidate teachers", adding that schools are "free to include a full range of issues, ideas and materials in their curriculum". With fundamental principles at stake, the government should now launch its own investigation into the handling of the affair and consider how we got ourselves into the position where religious extremists have a veto on which resources teachers can use in the classroom.
But instead the DfE has simply said "parents, families and the local community" should "recognise the findings of the investigation" and "welcome and support" the trust's plan to "strengthen its oversight of the curriculum".
Everyone will understandably want to move on from this now. But before we do, we should recognise that an Islamic blasphemy code has been quietly imposed. Teachers' and pupils' freedoms have been sacrificed to appease offence takers.
The outcome of the Batley affair is another damaging chip away at the fundamental right to free expression and inquiry.
Additional note - Friday 28 May
The NSS has today written to the DfE about this. The letter urged the department to investigate the handling of the protests outside Batley Grammar School.
It added that the investigation should consider the wider context of religious fundamentalism being imposed on schools through protests and intimidation, and ask what can be done to protect and support schools in such situations.
Image: Oxana Maher / Batley Grammar School / CC BY-SA 2.0.
Parents’ religious wishes must not trump children’s safety and education
Every child has been withdrawn from sex education classes at an independent faith school. Megan Manson says the parental right of withdrawal is incompatible with children's right to an education that keeps them safe.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
School inspectors recently concluded that leaders of an independent Orthodox Jewish faith school had "fulfilled their statutory responsibilities" regarding sex education – despite no children at the school taking any sex education classes.
According to its Ofsted report, Ateres Girls High School in Gateshead allows for sex education to be taught but all parents have withdrawn their children from these classes. That's nearly 250 teenage girls who are missing out on sex ed.
It is almost comical that Ofsted can consider this school to be fulfilling its duties to provide sex education when none of its pupils are actually studying it. But the implications of this are no laughing matter.
Sex education and the law
The requirement that all schools teaching secondary age pupils must provide sex education is relatively recent. It's thanks to the implementation of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, intended to promote the welfare and safeguarding of children.
The fact that this act includes a legal duty for schools to provide relationships and sex education (RSE) tells us something about the importance of RSE in keeping children safe.
Department for Education guidance further illustrates how sex education is, first and foremost, a form of safeguarding. According to the guidance, sex education should include information about contraception, pregnancy and abortion, sexually transmitted infections, LGBT+ orientations, abuse and violence within relationships, and where to get further advice on all these issues. This is all essential to prepare teenagers for adult life and to make sure the relationships they form are healthy and happy.
However, the Children and Social Work Act also requires that parents be given the right to request their child to be withdrawn from sex education. This is to accommodate parents, usually from conservative religious backgrounds, who object to their children learning about sex, even in an age-appropriate manner and in order to keep them from harm.
This is why Ofsted is technically correct about Ateres Girls High School. On paper at least, the school appears to be providing sex education. But the parents have en masse decided to exercise their right to bar their children from sex ed classes. To what extent the school has influenced this decision is unclear; the Ofsted report said the school's policy "anticipates that parents are likely to withdraw their child".
The parental right of withdrawal has therefore rendered Ofsted powerless to ensure pupils receive sex education.
The case for ending the right of withdrawal
What happens when teenagers aren't given access to sex education? A recent report from Jewish counter-extremism group Nahamu revealed some of the dire consequences.
The report identified the lack of RSE as a key factor in forced marriage within Charedi ('ultra-Orthodox') Jewish communities. Charedi communities are notoriously insular and highly controlled by religious leaders. Access to information, be it via television, newspapers, the internet or books, is strictly limited.
Nahamu highlights that Charedi Jews typically marry young after a very short engagement and may not be made aware of the sexual aspects of marriage until the run up to their weddings. They may not understand the concept of consent or be able to recognise dangers such as domestic abuse or marital rape. This is why the report recommends that all RSE programmes, including in independent faith schools, include information about forced marriage.
But this is of little use if parents are able to withdraw their children from sex education. And as Nahamu makes clear, young people in conservative religious communities who are the most likely to be withdrawn from sex education are those who are in the greatest need of these classes.
Children from conservative Christian, Muslim and other religious backgrounds may also have this information withheld at their parents' wishes, and they too are vulnerable to issues around abuse and unhealthy relationships.
It is notable that while Ateres Girls High School did not fail its inspection in terms of sex education, it did fail to meet equality standards by refusing to teach about LGBT+ orientations. This too is a serious problem. Nahamu's report highlighted that the "total exclusion" of reference to LGBT+ people in Charedi communities means that LGBT+ Charedi Jews "face additional challenges and very serious issues of consent".
It is also common sense to make sure all young people are aware that LGBT+ people exist. Imagine being a teenage boy in a conservative religious community growing up to realise you are attracted to other boys rather than girls. Unless you're aware that homosexuality exists and that it is quite normal, completely harmless and nothing to be ashamed about, this could be a terrifying ordeal with serious mental health implications. It is also important for schools to challenge stigmatising and discriminatory attitudes that pupils may hold.
For these reasons, teaching about LGBT+ people is not optional – there is no right of withdrawal from this part of the school curriculum. In this case, the government has decided the right of pupils to an education that prepares them for adult life in the 21st century trumps the desire of communities to censor information about LGBT+ orientations for religious reasons.
Independent schools, religious or not, should retain greater freedom than state-funded schools over the content and delivery of their curricula. However, that freedom should not come at the cost of putting pupils' welfare at serious risk. Depriving young people, especially those in insular communities, of information about their own bodies and healthy relationships makes them extremely vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and entering marriages that they regret for the rest of their lives.
The right of parents to withdraw children from sex education is in direct conflict with the right of children to learn about a key facet of adulthood and how to protect themselves as they grow up. It's time for the balance of these rights to be shifted towards the children. All young people, whatever their religious or cultural background, should be given genuine and unconditional access to objective, inclusive and age-appropriate education about relationships and sex.
Image: © palidachan/Shutterstock.com.
The religious threat to global human rights must be taken seriously
UN efforts to challenge violations of human rights should consider both oppressive laws which theocrats uphold in former colonies and efforts to impose similar agendas further afield, says Keith Porteous Wood.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
The United Nations recently asked NGOs with whom it works about the legacies of colonialism that still had adverse implications for human rights. Some of the worst systemic human rights abuses codified in the law of around 70 states are those criminalising consensual sex between adults of the same sex.
About 40% of these are in Africa, which was almost entirely colonised by European empires. Such acts were also potentially subject to life imprisonment in India, introduced under British rule. Even after British rule, there is a possible death penalty in Pakistan and ten years' imprisonment in Bangladesh. In India criminalisation persisted until 2018.
These remnants of colonialism are implied by the title of this article in The Independent , which refers to "LGBT+ rights across the Commonwealth" and "Britain's colonial legacy of homophobia". The article also notes that "half of the 70 countries that criminalise homosexuality worldwide are (UK) Commonwealth members". Details of the position in individual countries are here.
There are strong correlations between former colonies and modern laws in contravention of human rights. But there is also a different cause for these widespread violations continuing.
The first thing to note is that there remain 11 countries where the death penalty is effective or possible, despite the UN passing a resolution condemning the use of the death penalty as punishment for consensual gay relations. Unbelievably this was opposed by the United States. All 11 countries are Muslim majority countries.
In 2019 Iran defended such laws: "Our society has moral principles. And we live according to these principles. These are moral principles concerning the behaviour of people in general. And that means that the law is respected and the law is obeyed."
A further clue comes in another passage from the Independent article, which warns of a "new wave of fundamentalist evangelicalism", funded from abroad. It adds that "well-funded evangelical groups from America have been spending vast amounts of money to build new movements and churches against LGBT+ equality in developing countries". Christianity is the most widely practised religion in most Commonwealth nations.
In an investigation published in 2020, openDemocracy noted that the US Christian right had poured more than $50m into Africa since 2007. One researcher based in South Africa said US conservative networks were "exporting hate to Africa and other parts of the world, along with US-style culture wars and polarisation over issues relating to gender and sexuality". The article also noted that in 2005, a plan for AIDS relief in Africa promoted by the George W Bush administration reserved two thirds of its HIV prevention funds for abstinence and fidelity campaigns, which were strongly supported by religious conservatives. The Bush plan spent about $1.4bn on such programmes.
And Africa is only part of this anti gay 'crusade': the article also noted that since 2008, US Christian right groups had spent more than $280m outside the US – across several continents.
There is also a great deal similar happening in Europe, some of the most concerning of which were set out in a leaked document – Restoring the Natural Order, an Agenda for Europe. The European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development has described these plans in Restoring the Natural Order as the "clandestine workings and deliberate strategy of Europe's anti-choice movement, which is driven by religious dogma and often has the fingerprints of the Vatican". It paints a picture of a movement which would "force women to carry unwanted pregnancies, restrict access to contraception, decide who can marry and decide who can call themselves a family". Those behind this 'agenda' are attempting to push their personal beliefs on to others, and enshrine religious beliefs that violate human rights into law.
Another concern is Poland's Foundation Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture, which EPF describes as "an extremist religious organisation". And in the most audacious and potentially far-reaching development Italy is now pushing for the Vatican to have a permanent role in UN health talks. This brings the threat of church doctrine being allowed to influence the decision-making body of the World Health Organisation, which would be detrimental to sexual and reproductive rights worldwide. Caroline Hickson, regional director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, has warned that strengthening the Catholic Church's conservative influence in this "unique and vital arena for international collaboration on public health" could "spell disaster for women's reproductive health and rights".
Anyone who cares about upholding human rights should be concerned. Many decades after former colonies declared independence, laws which persecute gay people and severely restrict freedom of expression and women's rights continue to cause widespread misery. Meanwhile, rather than being in retreat, religious conservatives are seeking opportunities to push draconian restrictions across new parts of the globe.
And in both cases groups who wish to impose religious dogma on others are introducing or upholding serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law. In response to the UN's call for evidence, the National Secular Society has urged it to consider this.
Image: United Nations headquarters, UN Photo/Joao Araujo Pinto [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0]
The 2015 General Election
Faith schools should not impose hijab on girls, report says
Report also recommends government resist 'Islamophobia' definitions that inhibit criticism of religious practices
CofE fails to back reporting of sex abuse disclosures in confession
Church admits confession is "a safe space" for child sexual abusers
Blasphemy laws identified in 11 more countries since 2020
Mocking religion in Portugal can be punished by up to a year's imprisonment, report finds
A monument to hijab is no way to celebrate women
A 16ft steel statue of a grim-faced women clad in an Islamic veil looms over a largely Muslim community. Weighing around a tonne and sharply angular, she evokes the totalitarian aesthetic of brutalist architecture: cold, imposing and inhuman. At her base is her name: "The Strength of the Hijab".
One can imagine such a statue in the centre of an Islamist theocracy such as Iran or Afghanistan – if radical Islam did not forbid depictions of people, let alone women, of course – as a reminder and warning to women who dare consider flouting these countries' tyrannical Islamic 'modesty' laws.
But this statue isn't in Iran or Afghanistan. It's to be erected in a park in Smethwick, Birmingham, this October. And its message is not to condemn the hijab as the misogynistic tool of women's oppression that it is in so many countries, but to celebrate it.
It's worth remembering at this point that on Saturday, days before the news of the statue was announced, the world mourned the first anniversary of the death of Mahsa Amini. Amini was a 22 year old woman who died at the hands of Iran's 'morality police' because she apparently wasn't wearing hijab correctly. According to witnesses, Amini was tortured in the back of a police van. Medical evidence suggests she died from severe head injuries inflicted during this torture.
Since Amini's death and the worldwide protests it sparked, Iran's response has been to double down on its subjugation of women and dissenters. Penalties for women who do not adhere to 'modesty' codes include imprisonment and severe fines. The regime has recently announced that businesses whose female employees failed to adhere to mandatory hijab requirements will also be punished.
The UK government's response has included sanctions on Iran's officials, the latest coordinated with other democratic countries on Friday. The timing, one day before the anniversary of Amini's death, was deliberate, to "send a clear message that the UK and our partners will continue to stand with Iranian women and call out the repression it is inflicting on its own people".
That's why the revealing ('unveiling' clearly isn't the right word) of Smethwick's new statue this week is a slap in the face of every woman who rejects hijab codes. It's as if it was timed as an act of triumph against Iran's courageous women who dare to show their hair. It feels like a tribute to the morality police who crush women's rights every day under their heels.
That probably wasn't the intention of those responsible for this statue. It was commissioned by Legacy West Midlands, a registered charity which "has its roots in celebrating the heritage of post-war migrant communities in Birmingham". Luke Perry, who created the sculpture, said: "The location of where it's going is Smethwick, [where] there's a humongous part of the community that is from the Islamic faith.
"They wear the hijab as part of their community, and it is really underrepresented."
These statements reveal that the statue's conception is likely rooted not in explicit support of Islamism, but in ignorance and an unwillingness to think critically about religious practices which are at odds with democratic values.
The assumption that all Muslim women in Smethwick wear hijab is simplistic and plays directly into Islamist narratives that Muslim women who decide not to cover their hair are not real Muslims at all. And in hardline Islam, the penalty for Muslims who are perceived to have left the faith by defying it is severe.
It's not hard to imagine many Muslim women who choose not to wear hijab will feel uncomfortable at being 'watched' by this inanimate incarnation of the morality police. It will add to the pressure they already feel to toe the line with more fundamentalist members of their community and don the headscarf.
Those who are truly underrepresented are the women, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who defy Islamist demands to cover up. There are thousands of them around the world, but they are silenced, harassed, threatened, imprisoned, tortured, raped, and murdered for their defiance.
The statue's base reads: "It is a woman's right to be loved and respected whatever she chooses to wear. Her true strength is in her heart and mind."
Few things could be a worse symbol for this sentiment than this statue. Far more fitting would a tribute to the women who bravely remove their hijab, such as the iconic women behind the White Wednesday movement in Iran who posted videos and photos of themselves removing their hijab in public.
All the decisions which led to the display of this statue show that British authorities are dangerously naïve when it comes to religion. They still operate under the belief that religion is a wholly positive force to be respected, accommodated and showcased, not something to be questioned.
And those who do question it may find themselves severely punished. Just as Councillor Mike Gilbert was in May, when he was denied the mayoralty of Boston Council because of social media comments he made during the World Cup in Qatar about Islam's treatment of women and gay people.
As a new report this week revealed, one in seven local authorities has adopted a definition of "Islamophobia" which could easily silence criticism of Islam, including the hijab. This no doubt makes it even harder for decision makers to express their concerns about religious issues.
Perhaps this is why Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council so readily approved the "Strength of Hijab" statue in August.
At a time when the UK should be prioritising community cohesion and basic human rights of all its citizens, its accommodation of religious fundamentalism threatens to deepen divides and drive the already marginalised further from public life.
Monuments to symbols of religious oppression are the last thing we need. We should instead be highlighting the struggles of individuals around the world who put their lives on the line standing up for values which bring us together: equality, democracy and freedom. Rather than celebrating the hijab, let's celebrate the women who bravely tear it off for the sake of those values.
Report: one in seven councils has adopted ‘Islamophobia’ definition
National Secular Society's role in resisting adoption of flawed definition highlighted
NSS urges government to replace “unpopular” RE
NSS letter follows lobbying from parliamentarians for more RE teacher training funding
Faith school fails ninth inspection in nine years
Independent faith school again found teaching an "inadequate" and "narrow" secular curriculum.
UK sanctions Iranian officials to mark Mahsa Amini’s death
Mahsa Amini died last year at the hands of Iran's "morality police" after arrest for failing to wear 'correct' hijab
NSS research: religion a factor in 50% of school management bans
NSS analysis finds prohibitions issued for running unregistered schools and promoting extremism.
NSS calls on Labour to “think again” on faith schools
Labour's plan to leave the faith school system unchanged risks perpetuating injustice, unfairness and discrimination, NSS warns.
