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
Our schools should promote social cohesion – so educate children together
As research shows social integration is key to fostering positive attitudes toward people of different religions and beliefs, Megan Manson says we should challenge the segregation and division inherent to faith schools.
Recently published research by Dr Rakib Ehsan has examined antisemitism within British Muslim communities. This brings good news and bad news.
First the bad news. The research found that when compared with their perception of other faith groups, British Muslims have the least favourable attitude towards Jews, with an average 'favourability' rating of 5.49 out of 10 (compared with 8.09 for fellow Muslims). The only faith or belief group to be ranked with lower favourability than Jews were atheists, at 5.10.
Now the good news. The research also found Muslims who are more socially integrated through their friendship groups have a more favourable view of all non-Muslim groups, including Jews (with an average rating of 5.65) and atheists (5.23).
These figures should come as no surprise. When people of different religions and beliefs mix socially on equal terms, they can better understand and trust each other. That's why the National Secular Society promotes a secular democracy, which treats people of all religions and none equally, as the best model for a culturally diverse society like the UK.
It is therefore bewildering that a number of government policies encourage segregation and division according to religion or belief. Perhaps nowhere is this more acute than in our school system.
A third of our state-funded schools are faith schools. Many of these explicitly segregate local communities by operating discriminatory admissions policies that prioritise families who match the school's faith ethos. Even those faith schools that do not discriminate in admissions send the message that their schools cater specifically to one religion, rather than providing an environment where children from all religion and belief backgrounds are equally welcomed.
As the UK becomes increasingly diverse, successive governments have exacerbated social divisions by opening an increasing variety of faith schools. In 2000 there were only two state-funded Islamic schools in England. Now there are 33, with more in the pipeline. There were 31 state-funded Jewish schools open in 2000, and now there are 52. And in 2000 there were two state-funded Sikh schools and no Hindu schools at all, but now there are 12 Sikh and seven Hindu schools.
Because religion is frequently linked to ethnicity, faith schools also segregate along racial lines. Islamic, Sikh and Hindu schools in particular have been recognised as having low racial diversity.
Additionally, research by Prof. Irene Bruegel of London South Bank University found white children were more likely to "cluster together" within denominational schools, making fewer friends of different ethnicities than at schools without a religious character.
The same study found that the positive benefits of attending a primary school with a mix of children from different ethnic and religion or belief backgrounds extend into the early years of secondary school. These children were more likely to make new friends from different backgrounds, and were more aware of racial discrimination.
The benefits even reached their parents, who "learn to respect people from other backgrounds as a result of their children's experiences".
It is interesting to note that the children in non-denominational secondary schools involved in the study were largely opposed to faith schools. One child said they thought faith schools are "out of order" because they single out "only one group and the rest get kicked out". Another said they weren't a good idea because "you don't get to mix with other cultures, which means you don't learn about different cultures".
In more recent years, the government has talked much about the importance of social cohesion, but has failed to address the elephant in the room: the faith schools splitting communities apart. In 2018, its Integrated Communities Strategy green paper expressly backed faith schools, despite saying new schools "should be inclusive and promote community cohesion".
Instead it promoted schools linking programmes between pupils from local schools of different faiths, or no faith. These programmes resemble 'exchange programmes' between schools from different countries – the pupils exchange photographs and details about themselves, and finally meet at a "neutral venue" to do classes or activities together.
It seems strange that children living in the same country, let alone the same town, require this kind of 'cultural exchange' programme to get to know each other. While well-intended, these programmes do little more than putting a sticking plaster on the issue, rather than treating the underlying problem of having segregated schools in the first place.
In fact, one case in Prof. Bruegel's research suggested primary school twinning "had little effect on white children's attitudes" and instead fuelled "their community's sense of losing out on investment". Bruegel concluded that "day-to-day contact between children who can more easily see each other as equals has far more chance of breaking down barriers between communities, than school twinning and sporting encounters". The two-thirds of our schools that have no religious designation do that just fine.
Dr Ehsan's latest findings on the importance of social integration, and the dangers of segregation, should serve as a wake-up call to politicians and policy-makers. If we are to promote harmonious relationships between people of different religions and beliefs, we must take the bold, brave step of challenging faith groups who wish to use our school system to further their religious agendas.
Image: Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock.com.
We all need the freedom to offend – including the most marginalised
Scotland's new hate crime bill could easily be weaponised to silence any speech deemed offensive. This will disempower, rather than protect, society's most vulnerable, says Megan Manson.
Challenging hatred and protecting marginalised people in society are not just noble causes. They are essential in order to maintain a thriving democratic society where all are treated equally, and none live in fear of persecution because of who they are.
I've no doubt this was in Scottish justice secretary Humza Yousaf's mind when he drafted the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill. Indeed, that's what he said recently in The National in response to the deluge of criticism the bill has received from lawyers, police, the press, politicians, feminists, religious institutions, and of course the NSS.
The objections come from diverse and disparate groups, but there is agreement on two points. Firstly crimes motivated by hate against a group of people are abhorrent, and vulnerable people should be protected.
And secondly people must be free to express what they think is the truth. That means they have to be able to say things other people may find deeply offensive.
"All great truths begin as blasphemy," said George Bernard Shaw. He knew truth often offends others when it clashes with their most deeply-held beliefs. Christians have been offended when biologists say humans evolved from apes. Jews have been offended when astronomers say the Earth is older than a few thousand years. Muslims have been offended when artists depict what they think Islam's prophet Muhammad looked like.
But the hate crime bill could censor people from expressing what they think is the truth by criminalising "abusive" speech that is "likely" to stir up hatred. "Abusive" is a subjective term widely used as a synonym for "offensive". And the line on speech that is "likely" to stir up hatred will mean the intention of the speaker can be irrelevant.
If Yousaf honestly believes the hate crime bill will not be used to censor speech people find offensive, he is being very naïve. He need look no further than the comment made by Nurul Hoque Ali, general secretary of Aberdeen Mosque (and Labour Party candidate at last year's general election), in last week's Press and Journal:
"Everyone would strongly support freedom of speech. The only caveat to that is: freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to offend. We must define what is unacceptable speech."
The doublethink at play here is extraordinary. Because offence is in the eye of the beholder, freedom of speech must include freedom to offend, or it is no freedom at all.
And who are the "we" who get to define what is "unacceptable speech"?
In Pakistan, it is the theocratic state that defines "unacceptable speech". Its blasphemy laws give the state a free pass to arrest anyone who doesn't conform to Islamic codes of behaviour and speech. Those found guilty may receive the death penalty.
We witnessed the consequences of Pakistan's laws only last week, when US citizen Tahir Ahmad Naseem was murdered inside the court where he was being tried for blasphemy. He had been detained since 2018 after a teenager accused him of insulting Islam during a conversation on the internet. Thousands of Islamists took to the streets to celebrate his murder.
Reports suggest the gunman targeted Naseem at least partly because he had been an Ahmadi Muslim. Ahmadi Muslims are not regarded as 'true' Muslims by the Pakistani state, and to declare that one is a Muslim and an Ahmadi can be considered a crime of blasphemy. Ahmadis are thus the subject of intense persecution in Pakistan.
It's easy to think this would be irrelevant in Scotland. But in Glasgow in 2017, Ahmadi Muslim Asad Shah was murdered for apparently insulting Islam. And that appalling crime should not be written off as a freak incident.
Discrimination against and censorship of Ahmadi Muslims has been ongoing in the UK. A recently published report by the all party parliamentary group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community highlighted that Ahmadi Muslims have been rejected from participating in multi-faith organisations including interfaith groups and religious education boards unless they agree not to call themselves Muslims. Complaints from other Muslims have also led to adverts by Ahmadi Muslims promoting their beliefs being taken down prematurely, and the cancellation of an Ahmadi Muslim event in 2012 about the Qur'an.
It's clear the number of people in the UK who think the speech of Ahmadi Muslims is "unacceptable speech" is not insignificant. Sending the message that no one has the right to offend others can result in the further marginalisation, oppression and persecution of those who are already vulnerable.
One aspect of the hate crime bill that has not proved controversial is its abolition of the common law offence of blasphemy. In fact, it has been overwhelmingly and rightly welcomed. This should speak volumes about the importance of free speech for people in Scotland. But as many have pointed out, criminalising 'abusive' speech that is 'likely' to stir up hatred threatens to resurrect the blasphemy law under the name of hate crime.
Yousaf and other supporters of the hate crime bill undoubtedly have good intentions. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Attempts to challenge hate and extremism must not send us down the road to authoritarianism and censorship.
It's not too late to fulfil George Holyoake's secularist vision
With secularist principles under siege across much of the world, it's worth reconsidering the vision of the man who coined the term 'secularism' in the 19th century, says his biographer Ray Argyle.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
When I was a schoolboy in British Columbia we began our day by reciting the lord's prayer. I accepted this small duty as a normal ritual of the classroom. Then, two things happened. First, I asked one of my classmates to give me some evidence for the truth of stories in the Bible. He insisted they were true, but could offer no support for their veracity. Second, two members of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect arrived at my home one Friday after school. I was home alone. These emissaries had a powerful story and I was willing to hear it.
Over the weekend, I plunged into the literature they had given me. I was caught up in the exhilarating evangelism that Jesus Christ supposedly taught and that his apostles practiced. On Monday, I returned home from school anxious to resume my religious reading. Perhaps five or six hours of secular boyhood, or an instinctive scepticism about most of what my elders told me, brought everything into focus. I came to the jolting decision that all I'd been told or read over the weekend was not believable.
Later, as I examined more closely religious practices around the world I also learned about secularism, a practical system that fulfills the idea of separation of church and state by removing religious control of public institutions – the schools, courts, government, and all public endeavours.
While growing numbers in western countries are content to live outside the church, many people of faith also support secularism for its contribution to social order and its hands off attitude toward religion. But secularism's future, like the struggle to achieve it, is subject to the dynamics of public opinion and the pressures of social change. The most relentless opposition to secularism stems from the polar opposites of Christian evangelism and Islamic extremism, one seeking to restore religious values to the public realm, the other engaged in terrorism to advance its interests. Mix these conflicting ingredients and the result is a contest of which no one can predict the outcome.
George Jacob Holyoake, a radical English social reformer and atheist, invented the word secularism in 1851, propagandised its message, and struggled to raise the moral standards and material conditions of his countrymen. Yet for some unknowable reason, Holyoake has virtually vanished from history, unheard of by the public. There is no mention of his name in one of the most eminent of books on secularism, Charles Taylor's A Secular Age.
In order to bring Holyoake the recognition he deserves, I have written his first modern biography, Inventing Secularism: the radical life of George Jacob Holyoake. It will be published in spring 2021 by McFarland & Co., USA.
George Jacob Holyoake was born in Birmingham in 1817 and died in Brighton in 1906. Notwithstanding his origins in the 19th century, Holyoake was a man for the modern age. His vision encompassed ideals of social justice that would become universally accepted nearly 200 years after he first expressed them. Through a long, controversial, and conflict-filled life, marked by as many mistakes as triumphs, he was in the vanguard of almost every struggle to improve the lives of ordinary people – public education, the co-operative movement, freedom of the press, trade unions, women's rights, and universal suffrage.
He was hailed after his death as "one of the men who fought for and won for Englishmen that freedom of speech which we take as a matter of course today". For a man largely neglected in popular history, he played a transformative role in the evolution of modern life and the rise of democratic rule in Britain and the west.
Holyoake came to the idea of secularism after enduring hardship, persecution, and imprisonment as a social missionary for capitalist turned reformer Robert Owen and his socialist utopian movement, the Society of Rational Religionists. After a Christian upbringing, George Holyoake fell into atheism with the imprisonment of a friend for blasphemy and his own arrest for a speech in which he declared he no longer believed in such a thing as a god. Convicted of blasphemy, Holyoake reflected on the conditions of English life during his six months in the Gloucester County Gaol. He came out convinced of the need for a new social order that would release the individual from the grasp of enforced religious doctrine.
Upwards of 100 countries now affirm support for secularism. The United States has functioned as a largely secular state despite a continuing presence of religiosity in its public life; the United Kingdom, secular in many respects, retains an established church with appointed bishops in its House of Lords, religious schools, and a monarch who is head of both the church and the state.
Canada, nominally secular, recognises "the supremacy of God" in its constitution and provides public funding for Roman Catholic schools. Quebec's bans on the wearing of hijabs by public sector workers in positions of authority may go too far, in the opinion of many. British-controlled India adopted secularism for its promise of harmony between Hindus and Muslims, a hope that has receded under the long-reigning Modi government.
Religious belief is in free fall everywhere in the west. People of no religion (the 'nones') account for 52% of the population of England and Wales, and one-quarter of the population of the United States and Canada. Only 12% of Britons are affiliated with the Church of England, down from 40% in 1983. There is strong support for the secularist tradition in France, and for secularist principles in the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Australia. China pays lip service to secularism but uses its atheist ethos to oversee its Christian citizenry and oppress its Muslim minority.
In contrast to these trends, secularism finds itself in a state of siege in many countries. Christian evangelists in the United States are pushing to have their religious ideas enacted into public policy in fields as diverse as health, education, foreign aid, and law. President Trump's attorney general has openly declared war on secularism and hundreds of millions of dollars of coronavirus aid have been transferred to churches, in violation of the US constitution. In Turkey, long the most secular Muslim country, the famed Hagia Sophia, a museum since 1935, was recently reestablished as a mosque. Three states that were once secular – Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan – have enshrined Islam as their official religion.
Meanwhile, Islamic fundamentalism uses the blunt force of terrorism to attack rival faiths and the infidel idea of secularism. Secular states must respond to the pressures of 21st century migrations and the accommodation of non-secular traditions.
George Holyoake looked beyond his own time, confident that "secularist principles involve for mankind a future". It would be a future of moral as well as material good, offering an infinite diversity of intellect with equality among humanity, and "all things – noble society, the treasures of art, and the riches of the world – to be had in common".
His was a vision of a secularism that rises above sectarian differences or economic rivalries, and places universal opportunity, and individual freedom, in the hands of all who inhabit our rich and beautiful – but endangered – planet Earth. It is not too late for us to fulfill his vision.
This is a lightly edited version of a piece which was originally posted on the Humanist Freedoms blog. It's reprinted here with kind permission.
Photo courtesy of Ray Argyle: Portrait of George Holyoake, by Sarah Watson.
Please join us for a free online event Inventing Secularism: The Radical Life of George Jacob Holyoake – book launch with Ray Argyle, Thursday 22 April 2021
Let’s scrap discriminatory faith-based school admissions for good
In the UK, whatever happens to religious institutions is likely to have a knock-on effect on the state somewhere. That's one of the many disadvantages of not separating religion and state. And we're now beginning to see the impact of closing places of worship due to the coronavirus on some of our state schools – specifically, the third of them which are faith schools.
On Friday the government published guidance for faith schools in England, advising them to make changes to their admissions arrangements for the September 2021 intake. Many faith schools operate exclusionary and discriminatory admissions criteria that prioritise the children of regular churchgoers over other children. But because places of worship have been closed for months, faith schools cannot use church attendance as a reliable method of assessing how 'worthy' children are to attend their school. They'll have to find new ways of deciding which children to admit if they're oversubscribed.
It would plainly be absurd and unfair to use attendance at a place of worship as admissions criteria when places of worship have been inaccessible for months on end. But isn't assessing children's suitability for school admission based on churchgoing absurd and unfair in the first place? For many people, places of worship are hardly accessible at the best of times.
More than half of all Brits have no religion, and over a quarter are open atheists. For many, attending church is an alienating, tedious and wasteful use of a Sunday morning. Nevertheless, many parents are willing to feign religiosity in order to get their child into their local faith school for reasons other than its religious ethos (for example, its distance from their house).
But this option is not merely undesirable for many – it is practically impossible. Single parents, parents who regularly work at weekends, low income families, and families with disabled or seriously ill members are just a few of examples of parents who face practical barriers to committing to regular church services. School admissions criteria based on church attendance therefore favour comfortably well-off, able-bodied families with two parents. It's no wonder that those who attend church in order to get their child into their desired school are more likely to be middle class.
The overwhelming majority of faith schools are Christian, and many parents of other religions are doubtlessly unwilling to attend regular church services, especially if they already attend other places of worship. Moreover, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are less likely to be white, so there is a risk of indirect racial bias if we assess children's suitability for a school based on their family's worshipping habits.
And then there are LGBT parents. Considering the attitude most religions have towards same-sex relationships, chances are a substantial proportion of them will be reluctant to attend a place of worship every week.
There's a meme circulating social media which says after the pandemic, we shouldn't simply 'go back to normal' because 'normal was the problem'. The upheaval caused by coronavirus has exposed many inequities and disparities in society. It's also caused people to look at society from a new perspective, to question the status quo, and to seek ways of improving how we do things. Religious-based discrimination in our schools is one thing we should leave behind as we enter a post-Covid society.
We'll be watching closely to see how faith schools change their admissions criteria. Some may decide to temporarily do away with assessing the religiosity of families in favour of sensible criteria that the other two thirds of our schools use - for example, how far away the family lives from the school. That may prompt more people than ever to question why our schools ever needed to know how often families go to church at all.
And perhaps they'll also question why politicians have been so keen to hand control of our schools to those who wish to treat them as religious communities. Wouldn't admissions be a lot simpler and fairer if we just spent taxpayers' money on inclusive community schools?
Why make a spectacle out of religion in the courtroom?
Stephen Evans argues that the current system of religious oaths and affirmations should be replaced by a universal secular declaration of the solemn duty to tell the truth.
The Republic of Ireland looks set to take another step towards secular modernity by removing a requirement for witnesses to indicate their religious faith when filing an affidavit.
The changes are being proposed in the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2020, under which witnesses would instead make a "statement of truth".
However, as is the case in the UK, jurors and witnesses giving evidence in person in court will still be required to swear a religious oath or make a secular affirmation.
So, whilst the reforms in Ireland are welcome, they don't go far enough – as the president of the Law Society of Ireland, Michele O'Boyle, has pointed out.
Ireland's Law Society has been advocating for abolition of religious oaths since 1990. According to Ms O'Boyle: "The current system of oaths and affirmations, which dates back to 1888, is contrary to the right to privacy and contrary to a person's dignity in legal proceedings.
"Requiring a person to either declare one's religious conviction, or lack thereof, is, by any standard entirely inappropriate in a progressive, 21st century legal system." Quite right.
This system of different religious oaths on various holy books and secular affirmations unnecessarily makes an issue out of people's religiosity in the courtroom. Why on earth should a defendant's or witness's religious affiliations be the first thing a jury finds out about them?
An individual's religious beliefs are essentially a private matter and (usually) entirely irrelevant to the legal process. But there is also the risk that making a performative display of a person's religious or atheistic convictions may actually impede the administration of justice. According to O'Boyle, the current system of oaths and affirmations can "give rise to unfair perceptions on the credibility of the evidence given where individuals decline to take a religious oath".
This is backed up by academics, who have argued that a procedure that signals someone's belief or disbelief in God "is an influential cue of morality or immorality" that could bias trial outcomes in any number of ways.
According to Ryan McKay at Royal Holloway and Colin Davis, chair in Cognitive Psychology at the University of Bristol: "There is a real risk that defendants who take the religious oath when giving evidence may, by that very fact, enjoy more favourable verdicts and sentencing decisions than those who opt for the secular affirmation."
"The different potency of the religious oath and secular affirmation as signals of a witness's credibility is precisely the reason the oath should be abolished", they argue.
But it's not only the non-religious who stand to be disadvantaged. Any juror harbouring a prejudice may be influenced by someone swearing on a holy book, and regard them with suspicion, consciously or unconsciously.
A single affirmation to tell the truth, and acknowledgment that knowingly giving false evidence may result in prosecution for perjury, removes any unnecessary distinction between witnesses. It introduces a level playing field that takes away the need for a person to reveal their religious beliefs before they even give evidence. This would put all witnesses on an equal footing, making it more likely that cases would be decided on the evidence heard rather than the prejudices of those hearing it.
A proposal to end the swearing of oaths on the Bible and other holy books in courts in England and Wales was considered, but ultimately rejected by magistrates in 2013. The motion called for oaths and affirmations to be replaced by a promise to "very sincerely tell the truth". Magistrates Association members who backed it argued it would make the justice system fairer, more relevant and help to convey the importance of what witnesses are saying.
Senior figures in the Church of England called it "another attempt to chip away at the country's Christian foundations" and at least one who member who rejected the motion expressed concern that that magistrates would "pilloried for going against centuries of tradition". Church leaders also argued that religious oaths strengthen the value of witnesses' evidence. This argument, which has more than a whiff of prejudice about it, is as unconvincing as it is unsupported by evidence.
Some evangelicals would probably argue that to deny people the opportunity to swear on the Bible in court would restrict their religious freedom. But any person making a secular 'statement of truth' can of course privately call on God to witness the truth of their statements if they so desire. And any tension with human rights is created by a legal system that requires individuals to reveal personal beliefs. Replacing religious oaths and affirmations with a single declaration would best protect everyone's right to respect for private life, which is enshrined in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
There is a value in requiring witnesses to acknowledge publicly before they give evidence that they are under a solemn duty to tell the truth – and commit a serious criminal offence if they do not. But the process for achieving this should be universal, rather than the multifaith mishmash of oaths and affirmations we have now.
Tradition is all good and well, but it shouldn't stand in the way of a secular legal system which treats everyone equally and which prioritises the fair administration of justice above all.
It’s time for one marriage law for all
A new High Court challenge to get humanist marriages legally recognised in England and Wales gives us an opportunity to consider how to reform our marriage laws for greater simplicity, equality and freedom, says Megan Manson.
Should humanist marriages be legally recognised? That is the question put before the High Court today in a landmark case.
According to Humanists UK, a humanist wedding is a non-religious ceremony that is "reflective of the humanist beliefs and values of the couple, conducted by a celebrant who shares their beliefs and values." The six couples who have brought the case to court say they are being discriminated against because this ceremony does not have the same legal recognition in England and Wales afforded to some religious groups. They seek a similar arrangement available to Quakers and Jews, who enjoy considerable freedom from legal regulation of their marriages.
The case has opened a welcome debate on marriage laws in England and Wales, and addresses the pressing need for reform. It's not just humanists who are unhappy with the status quo. Within Muslim communities, there is very real confusion as to what is and isn't a legally recognised Islamic marriage. This has resulted in Muslim women finding themselves without the right to financial remedies if they 'divorce', because the courts never recognised they were married in the first place.
Clearly, our current marriage system is no longer suited to our increasingly irreligious and religiously-diverse society.
Marriage laws in England and Wales are over-complex and over-dependent on the religious identity of the couple getting married. There are separate marriage laws for Anglicans, Jews, Quakers, members of other religions, and those who do not want religious marriage. This is not conducive to a society where all are treated equally before the law regardless of religion or belief, or one where spouses frequently have different religions or beliefs from each other.
Moreover, the legality of marriages in England and Wales depends heavily on where the marriage takes place (except in the case of Jews and Quakers, who may marry anywhere). This is a relic of the past when marriage was heavily governed by the Church of England, which now significantly hinders the freedom of couples to marry where and how they wish. The centrality of location in marriage law also leads to inequality, with approved premises for civil marriages having much greater financial burdens than religious marriage venues.
Same-sex couples are especially affected by inequities in our marriage laws. Less than one per cent of places of worship registered for marriage will accept same-sex couples. There are over 39,700 places of worship registered for marriage, but approximately only 7,400 civil wedding venues. This means same-sex couples can only access a small proportion of venues where legally-recognised marriage is possible.
Giving legal recognition to the marriage rites of increasing numbers of different communities will do little to solve these fundamental problems. It will simply build additional complexity and identity-based rules into our already bloated marriage laws. What we need is 'one marriage law for all.'
What the various forms of marriages in England and Wales have in common are preliminaries, some form of documentation and a trained official registrar or celebrant. It makes sense for the requirements of a legally-recognised marriage to be limited more or less to these elements. The location where the marriage takes place should no longer be a consideration. This would give couples much greater freedom to have a wedding that suits their practical, philosophical and spiritual needs. The success of Jewish and Quaker weddings, in addition to weddings in Scotland which are also not dependent on location, demonstrates there is no real need for marriage to be tied to a particular venue.
Far from resulting in identical weddings for everyone, a single marriage law requiring the same basic legal elements would in fact give all couples, regardless of their religion or belief, the flexibility to have a truly bespoke wedding unique to them.
Combined with improved civic education about relationships, reforming the civil institution of marriage would also help alleviate the problem of the legality of Islamic marriages. A simplified marriage law requiring the same documentation and legal process for all would help to make it clear to every couple what is required for the courts to recognise the marriage. Dr Vishal Vora, Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, came to similar conclusions in an article on the legality of Islamic marriages published recently in the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs:
"However, a question needs to be kept in the foreground: should the law really be changed for one minority religious group, when all other such groups are able to follow the law, despite its complexity? The answer is probably no. Nevertheless, the law would most certainly benefit from an update, possibly incorporating other kinds of marriage, such as same-sex marriage. A move away from the historical roots in the canon law of the Church and a re-evaluation of the buildings-based nature of defining marriage will benefit all of society, and not just one specific group."
The Law Commission is currently exploring various possibilities for reform "that allows for greater choice within a simple, fair, and consistent legal structure." However, the limited Terms of Reference for their deliberations mean any recommendations are likely fall short of what is required – which makes humanists' eagerness to force the issue in the courts understandable.
But secularism is about finding solutions that can unify everyone in a diverse society, rather than split them into increasing numbers of groups with their own rules and competing interests. And perhaps no institution represents the importance of unity and bringing people together better than marriage. It's time to reform our marriage laws to bring us all together as equals in society.
How faith schools are spreading without scrutiny or consultation
The National Secular Society campaign works to promote inclusive community ethos alternatives to faith schools. An important part of this is highlighting and amplifying local opposition to new faith school proposals.
You might think that where a new school is proposed, particularly where it has a specific faith ethos, clear information on the proposal would be available to enable the community in which it is situated to scrutinise the plans and express a view. In short, you might think there would be an open consultation. But our research has revealed a damaging democratic deficit when it comes to the transparency of free school applications.
A significant number of the new schools likely to be approved in the latest wave of free school applications are faith schools.
The lack of transparency surrounding these faith school proposals is alarming. While the Department for Education (DfE) has special agreements to work in coordination with the largest faith school providers, civil society groups and local people are almost entirely locked out of the process.
Some of these faith schools may be approved for the pre-opening stages early as July 2020 with no public consultation.
The DfE claims it is "committed to being as transparent as possible" and that "As such, we will publish a full list of the applications we receive", but this information is minimal. The list doesn't necessarily identify the sponsor or provide information on the proposal. Even the location isn't often clear.
Successful applications are published in full, only after it is far too late to lodge any objection.
Our freedom of information request to see the applications was refused. The DfE's rationale for refusal was that the decision on whether or not to approve the schools should be made by the secretary of state "free from speculation and lobbying".
If reapplying after being unsuccessful in a previous round, the applicants are expected to say how they have responded to the written feedback of the DfE. There's no requirement for the applicant to respond to feedback from local, community or civil society groups who might have something to say about a faith school opening in their area – assuming they had an opportunity to express a view in the first place.
The DfE refused even to provide the applications of unsuccessful proposals – including the ones likely to reappear in future application waves – citing concern that public scrutiny may lead to school proposers being "discouraged from applying due to any negative interest and attention received".
Officials should of course have the opportunity to assess applications based on the established criteria, but without some form of public scrutiny, how can we be sure they are actually assessing these criteria?
Section D of the application process concerns engagement with the local community. But this engagement is entirely run by the school proposer, with little or no transparency. The applicant needs to show they have "effectively marketed the school to a diverse cross-section of the community", rather than "effectively consulted" the community. Applicants are supposed to show that they have adapted the proposal "in response to feedback". But as the proposer runs the process themselves and the DfE limits information on applications, feedback is extremely limited.
The guidance talks about the type of engagement activity applicants may undertake, including websites (most don't have them) and leaflets or promotional material, where they must "make sure that all material adequately describes the school you are proposing". But again, there is no serious attempt to allow criticism or oversight. The Church of England is particularly guilty of presenting discriminatory admissions policies as 'open and inclusive'. There is so little available information about the proposals that one is tempted to think it is just being directed at faith communities.
In the best-case scenario, applicants have some survey or way of registering interest, aimed at their own supporters, but which is public. There's nothing wrong with organisations surveying their supporters to help make the case. But this is about as far from consultation as a petition is from an opinion poll.
Applications to establish faith schools are supposed to demonstrate that they will be inclusive of people of other faiths and beliefs. But the DfE has consistently failed to provide any transparency over how this is assessed and it's difficult to see any requirement beyond empty rhetoric.
Publishing applications as part of an open consultation process would allow proper scrutiny. Of particular interest to local and civic groups opposed to a faith school would be Section E of applications, where proposals have to set out their education plan and how they intend to support community cohesion.
The lack of transparency over locations of proposed faith schools means that local residents are often unable to express a view. In previous applications it has only been research from the No More Faith Schools campaign which has shown when proposals for faith-based and community ethos schools are competing for the same site. The DfE looks "favourably" on applications where the site is available from local authorities on a peppercorn basis. This encourages the use of Section 106 agreements with housing developers to provide sites. This means that the cost of building new faith schools on new housing developments is passed on to homebuyers, even though a religious school may not be appropriate for them – or even open to them. You might think that this gives local authorities a mechanism to leverage support for non-faith-based schools. But the DfE has a history of strong-arming local authorities.
The lack of transparency also means that new faith schools may be approved in areas where they are not needed. Wave 14 is meant to focus on areas of significant school need, particularly where existing schools are of a low standard. However, at least seven faith schools have been proposed in the latest round in areas where the government data shows a low or zero need for new school places: Light Academy, Rochdale; St.Joseph's C of E, Hartlepool; Immanuel, Bexley; King David faith school, Lewisham; Avenue CofE, Wingerworth; International Christian, Newham; and Nishkam High, Wolverhampton.
All of this creates a situation whereby divisive faith schools are being foisted on communities that may not want or need them. Greater transparency is needed to ensure that those favouring secular and inclusive schools have the opportunity to say so.
We must protect pupils’ educational rights where schools consistently fail
Religious schools that censor textbooks, teach creationism and limit pupils' chances aren't respecting the right to a quality education. The government shouldn't let them repeatedly fail inspections, says Stephen Evans.
There has plenty of talk of late about the effects of the coronavirus lockdown on children's educational rights.
According to Prof Francis Green at the UCL Institute of Education, the closure of schools, and their only partial reopening, constitute a "potential threat to the educational development of a generation of children". Anne Longfield, the children's commissioner for England, warned there was a "very dangerous" threat to the historic right to guaranteed education. UNICEF says the effects of the pandemic will "cast a long shadow over their lives".
Hopefully, with a fair wind, all pupils in all year groups across the UK should be back to school full-time by September.
But what sort of education will they return to? Spare a thought for the thousands of children denied their basic right to a good education by consistently underperforming schools.
Last week, the National Secular Society wrote to the Department of Education to highlight concerns and evidence that that some pupils' human rights are being perpetually breached when schools are permitted to fail repeatedly.
Consider, for example, the educational rights of 950 pupils attending the Bnois Jerusalem Girls School in Hackney.
This school was given a warning notice in 2018 after Ofsted criticised it for preventing pupils from gaining GCSEs, censoring resources and other failures. In its latest inspection it was deemed 'Inadequate' in every area.
Inspectors found the school still "censoring fiction books and text, photographs and illustrations in geography textbooks" and "not entering pupils for GCSEs because exam regulations don't allow leaders to censor papers – severely limiting pupils' options for post-16 study." The school was also found to be teaching creationism as science and limiting the scope of its curriculum to "make it fit with Orthodox Jewish teaching", leaving children unprepared for life in Britain and lacking confidence in English.
Instead of demanding better from the school, the community it serves reacted by accusing Ofsted of conducting "an inquisition". Parents have insisted that inspectors not speak to pupils during inspections.
If parents won't protect children's educational rights, the state has a duty to do so.
But this school is just one of a number of religious schools that have consistently failed to meet expected standards.
Another is the Bnei Zion Community School, which has been rated inadequate since 2016. Despite pupils spending the majority of their school time on religious education, their knowledge about other beliefs, cultures and faiths is "severely limited". Subjects are taught in Yiddish, leaving pupils with "limited ability to understand basic words in the English language". Pupils learn only about Jewish history and are not exposed to differing views of historians.
Then take the Lubavitch Senior Boys' School, an independent school for boys aged from 11 to 13. This school has been rated inadequate in all four inspections since opening in 2018. Again, inspectors recently found insufficient time devoted to the secular curriculum, including English and reading. Pupils couldn't even provide any written evidence of their English work. Texts found among religious textbooks in the school "do not teach respect for women", said inspectors.
It's a similar story at Redstone Educational Academy, a Muslim faith school in Birmingham, where inspectors found boys and girls unlawfully segregated by sex, with boys treated favourably. All pupils study Islam and "learn a little about other faiths but not enough to prepare them well for life in modern Britain". According to inspectors, pupils are not safe in the school, which provides an "inadequate quality of education" – and has done consistently since 2017.
The list goes on. A report from Ofsted earlier this year found that more than 200,000 children, mainly in disadvantaged areas, are being educated in schools that have been consistently weak when inspected over the last 13 years. Not all of these have a religious ethos, but some of the most egregious examples are where religion rules the roost.
Education is a key social and cultural right that plays a vital role in ensuring children can flourish, fulfil their potential and leave school fully prepared for life in modern Britain. And the civil purpose of education must surely be about enabling young people to make their own choices in life. It shouldn't be about controlling them.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child protect children's right to a good education. The UNCRC requires states parties to ensure that children and young people's education is directed towards their development "to their fullest potential" and prepares them for a "responsible life in a free society". They should also learn to respect their rights and freedoms and the rights and freedoms of others. This simply isn't happening in far too many schools.
When the independent school standards were updated in 2015 the secretary of state signalled that a firmer approach would be taken to enforce the standards when there was evidence of non-compliance. Rhetoric must translate into action.
By allowing schools to consistently fail the government will fall short on its obligation to ensure that children's fundamental human right to a quality education is property respected and protected.
I'm not pretending the government's job is easy, but cultural sensitivity can't be allowed to undermine the education, well-being, and convention rights of young people growing up in Britain.
Why can't Ofsted stop state schools preaching that same-sex relationships are wrong?
As the government considers ways to end 'gay conversion therapy' it should give Ofsted the power to stop faith schools fostering anti-LGBT attitudes in the first place, says Megan Manson.
The government is considering legal solutions to the problem of so-called 'gay conversion therapy'. This week the parliamentary under-secretary of state for equalities Kemi Badenoch said the government has completed a draft report on the practice, experience, and effect of conversion therapy. The report will be published once its findings have been reviewed.
'Conversion therapy' can be a broad term which is difficult to define, and trying to ban it isn't simple. Is a priest who asks a gay Christian to pray for help in dealing with his or her feelings conducting 'conversion therapy'?
And what about the many organisations which encourage gay people to remain celibate? Last week Jayne Ozanne, who campaigns for LGBT+ equality in religious organisations, questioned whether charities which teach "young and vulnerable LGBT people" that they have to be celibate for life provide a public benefit.
But teaching young and vulnerable LGBT people that they are condemned to a life of celibacy is far from uncommon. In fact, it's in the relationships & sex education (RSE) policies of many state-funded Catholic schools.
As the National Secular Society highlighted in our 2018 Unsafe Sex Education report, it's fairly standard for Catholic schools to say that while homosexual 'inclinations' aren't themselves sinful, acting on those inclinations certainly is.
To give a few examples, the RSE policy of All Saints Catholic School and Technology College in Dagenham refers to the Catholic Church's teaching that "the full sexual expression of love is reserved for husband and wife in marriage" and so it "does not accept homosexuality in practice/the act of homosexual sex". As a consolation it adds that the church is "aware of the special problems of homosexuals" and that "the possibility of repentance and forgiveness for sexual sins is open to all".
Holy Trinity Academy in Telford says in its "Education in Sexuality Policy" that the "sexual activity of homosexual people" is deemed "unacceptable" because it "does not respect the complimentary nature of male and female". It says the school will "provide opportunities to help students make responsible decisions, based on Christian values about sexual activity and gender identity".
The RSE policy of St Peter's Catholic School and Specialist Science College in London says that when students ask questions about homosexuality, they should be taught the church's view that "homosexual acts go against the natural order".
Worryingly, similar sentiments are expressed in the "Challenging homophobic behaviour" policy of St John's Catholic Comprehensive in Kent. It says it is "necessary to distinguish between sexual orientation or inclination, and engaging in sexual (genital) activity, heterosexual or homosexual" and that "neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual orientation leads inevitably to sexual activity". Quoting Pope Francis, it says families with gay members should be given "pastoral guidance" so "those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God's will in their lives". This sounds awfully like getting priests to remind any LGBT+ children that they must never act upon their feelings. Is this verging into the territory of 'conversion therapy'?
What's strange is that the school inspectorate Ofsted doesn't penalise schools with such obvious homophobic content in their policies. It's even stranger when you consider that Ofsted is very quick to mark down independent schools that do not teach anything at all about sexual orientation or gender reassignment.
So why are independent schools seemingly held to a different standard to state schools when it comes to teaching about sexual orientation?
I think there are two important, connected reasons for this. One is that schools can teach RSE via a variety of different subjects, including science and personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education. As the NSS's Unsafe Sex Education report found, most faith schools that do have an RSE policy teach it at least in part through religious education (RE), which is why anti-homosexual religious views come into play.
And the second reason is that Ofsted does not inspect RE at faith schools.
It's yet another bizarre quirk of faith schools that their collective worship and RE provision are inspected not by the state, but by religious bodies (although the state still pays for them). In the case of Catholic schools, these inspections (often known as 'section 48 inspections') will be done by the local diocese. Seeing as the diocese often has a hand in writing school policies, it is essentially marking its own homework when it comes to teachings about sex in RE lessons.
As a result, it appears ideologies being taught in RSE at faith schools that are clearly in conflict with the schools' duty to promote equality and diversity are flying under Ofsted's radar.
This current state of affairs is bordering on the ridiculous. On the one hand, the government seeks to end 'conversion therapy', but on the other it directly funds schools that promote the idea that it's morally wrong for a gay, lesbian or bisexual person to act on their desires. And the inspection system in which religious organisations, and not Ofsted, oversee what's taught about sexual orientation in state-funded faith schools means these inconsistencies are likely to continue.
Any ban on conversion therapy is going to be difficult to formulate. In addition to the problems of defining 'conversion therapy', protecting people from the exploitation and harm of conversion therapy and giving consenting adults personal autonomy and freedom of religion will be a delicate balancing act.
But surely one of the best ways to end 'conversion therapy' is to end demand. To do this, we need to work towards a society that treats LGBT+ people as equals and challenge those institutions, including religious institutions, which espouse homophobic views.
And we must start with faith schools that tell young people they should never act on any attractions they have towards others of the same sex. It's time for Ofsted to step in and ensure no child is told by their school that they're sinful because of who they love.
Does Scotland’s justice minister realise the reach of his own hate crime bill?
Humza Yousaf has claimed a bill he's proposing isn't a threat to free speech because it sets a high threshold for criminality. But his careless words suggest he isn't taking concerns seriously, says Chris Sloggett.
Last Thursday Scotland's justice minister, Humza Yousaf, briefly fielded questions from MSPs on the new hate crime bill which he's proposing.
During the debate Conservative MSP Donald Cameron asked him if he'd reconsider a section of the bill that proposes to outlaw 'stirring up hatred' on a variety of grounds, including religion. Cameron highlighted opposition from the National Secular Society, religious groups and academics in support of his question.
In response Yousaf claimed groups he'd met "understood" that the relevant section of the bill was "not an attack on freedom of speech" because it "sets a very high threshold" for criminality. He went on (with emphasis added):
"Behaviour would have to be not only abusive and threatening but likely to stir up, or having the intention of stirring up, hatred."
This appears to be a misrepresentation of the bill. The relevant part of the draft law doesn't say "abusive and threatening"; it says:
"A person commits an offence if—
- the person—
- (i) behaves in a threatening or abusive manner, or
- (ii) communicates threatening or abusive material to another person, and
- (b) either—
- (i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons… or
- (ii) as a result, it is likely that hatred will be stirred up against such a group."
The relevant 'groups' here are defined by religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics.
This isn't the first time the justice minister has switched "and" with "or" while referring to this section. Defending his plans in The Scotsman on 8 May, Yousaf quoted the exact words from the bill – "threatening or abusive" – but also wrote:
"Let me be clear, people can hold and express views on any topic and subject – including opposing Scottish government policy. It is absolutely not a criminal offence to do so – unless this is expressed in an abusive and threatening manner with an intention to stir up hatred, or where it is likely that hatred will be stirred up."
In some contexts you could fairly describe this section of the bill while swapping the word 'and' with the word 'or' ("This will criminalise abusive and threatening words", for instance). But the swap can also make a substantial difference – and in both of these instances, Yousaf's language suggests he doesn't appreciate that. The words in the bill will make it easier to convict someone than the words he sometimes slips into using.
A comparison with the law in England and Wales helps to illustrate this. The equivalent section of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 only uses the word "threatening". "Threatening or abusive" will create a weaker test of speech than that. But the alternative words the minister has used – "abusive and threatening" – imply a marginally tougher one.
As I wrote last month, there are good reasons to be concerned about this bill. The claim that it sets a "very high threshold" doesn't reflect reality. Where the law in England and Wales only considers a speaker's intent, this bill considers either their intent or the speech's likely outcome. In Scotland, a clause says speech won't be criminalised "solely" because it criticises religion. In England and Wales, the equivalent clause specifies that the law shouldn't have the "effect" of criminalising criticism of religion.
The minister's dismissal of free speech concerns is misguided. And his careless words suggest he's not taking them seriously. That should change – and he should start by correcting the record to parliament.
UPDATE (25 June): A Scottish government official has told The Times that Yousaf will offer a correction to the official record at Holyrood after opposition politicians urged him to do so.
Image: Humza Yousaf (contains information licensed under the Open Scottish Parliament Licence V.2)
Emphasis added in all cases.
The 2015 General Election
End faith-based selection in schools, UN committee urges
Schools in England should be prevented from religious discrimination in their admissions, a United Nations committee has said.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) also recommended repealing compulsory collective worship in schools and the parental right of withdrawal from sex education.
The recommendations were made in the CRC's concluding observations, published today, on the most recent periodic reports of child rights in the UK.
The National Secular Society welcomed these recommendations, which it has raised with the UN repeatedly for many years.
Discrimination in faith schools
The CRC urged the UK to "guarantee the right of all children to freedom of expression and to practise freely their religion or belief", including by "preventing the use of religion as a selection criterion for school admissions in England".
Most types of faith schools in England have exemptions from the Equality Act 2010, which enable them to prioritise children from families who share their faith if they are oversubscribed.
This can include requiring parents and children to regularly attend a local place of worship or provide evidence of baptism.
Many parents find that because they belong to no religion or a minority religion, they are unable to send their children to their local state school.
The NSS has long campaigned for the equality law exemptions for faith schools to be repealed.
The CRC also recommended "revising the education syllabus in Northern Ireland to include education on and respect for a diversity of religions".
Last year NI's High Court ruled that the country's religious education system breaches the European Convention on Human Rights due to its heavy Christian bias.
Compulsory collective worship
The CRC recommended "repealing legal provisions for compulsory attendance in collective worship" in schools.
The law in England and Wales states that children at all maintained schools "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship". 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". The UK is the only Western democracy which legally imposes worship in publicly funded schools.
The NSS has long called for collective worship laws to be abolished because they breach children and families' freedom of religion or belief.
The committee said the UK should establish "statutory guidance to ensure the right of all children, including children under 16 years of age, to withdraw from religious classes without parental consent".
Children cannot currently withdraw themselves from collective worship until they reach Sixth Form.
The NI High Court also found NI's collective worship laws breach human rights.
Relationships and sex education
The CRC said "comprehensive, age-appropriate and evidence-based" sex education should be compulsory at all levels of education, including information on same-sex relationships and reproductive health rights. It said this should be "without the possibility for faith-based schools or parents to opt out of such education".
Parents in England, Scotland and NI can withdraw their children from sex education. While relationships and sex education is compulsory for all state schools in England, NI and Wales, faith schools may teach it from a religious perspective. NSS research in 2018 found this results in "distorted" sex education, including teaching adolescents that contraception and same-sex relationships are morally wrong. The CRC raised particular concern about discrimination against children who are LGBT.
NSS urges government to implement recommendation to make inclusive schools "a reality"
NSS head of campaigns Megan Manson said: "We welcome the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child's recommendation that faith-based selection at schools be abolished.
"As the UK becomes more irreligious and religiously-diverse, more parents are finding their children locked out of their local school, simply because they don't belong to the 'right' religion. It's disgraceful that such religious discrimination is permitted in the schools we all pay for.
"We also welcome the committee's recommendation to end compulsory collective worship. Compelling children to pray to gods they do not believe in has no place in schools.
"It's high time our entire education system was transformed into a secular, inclusive one which equally welcomes children from families of all religions and beliefs. We urge the government to implement the CRC's recommendations to make this a reality."
NOTES
Other CRC recommendations which the NSS has called for include:
- "Promptly and effectively" investigating and intervening in all cases of child abuse, including in religious institutions.
- Ensuring access for adolescent girls to "age-appropriate family planning services, affordable contraceptives and safe abortion and post-abortion care services", particularly in Northern Ireland.
- Developing strategies for eliminating child marriage, female genital mutilation and 'honour' violence.
- Ending "conversion therapy" of children.
- Improving education about children's human rights among children and teachers.
Why are councillors doing Islamists’ work for them?
After a councillor was denied mayoralty for criticising Islam, Jack Rivington warns politicians are playing into the hands of Islamist fundamentalists.
Last week, members of Boston Borough Council decided that the principle of free expression, and the traditions of their mayoralty, were less important than potentially offended religious feelings.
By convention as the longest serving member, Councillor Mike Gilbert was due to be appointed mayor of Boston for a one year term. However, following an intervention by several fellow councillors, he was blocked from taking up the position last month on the grounds that he had made past comments criticising aspects of Islamic religious doctrine.
These comments, posted on social media during the football World Cup in Qatar, drew attention to several features of Islam which Cllr Gilbert considered to be in conflict with the rights of women and LGBT people. Namely that in Islam, homosexuality is punishable by death, and women are considered to be of a lower status than men.
Despite Cllr Gilbert very clearly stating that his criticisms were not of Muslims themselves but of particular religious doctrines, a number of borough councillors saw fit to denounce him for what they characterised as 'hate speech'.
Cllr Anne Dorrian, who was serving as mayor at the time, said councillors had a political and moral obligation to "refrain from using hate speech". Failure to condemn such speech, Cllr Dorrian warned, could be interpreted as expressions of "approval or support". Cllr Dale Broughton also criticised the remarks, saying that they did "little to bring about social integration" in Boston.
It's disappointing that our elected representatives don't consider themselves at least equally obligated to defend the right to freedom of expression, integral as it is to our democratic society, or to advance the cause of secularism, which is the best guarantee of social cohesion and integration that we know of.
Through their actions, the councillors have signalled that religion, and in particular Islam, should be beyond the realm of reasonable public debate. Although attempts by religious fundamentalists to impose blasphemy codes and suppress freedom of expression around Islam are so regular as to no longer be surprising, it is alarming to see UK politicians so readily line up to support the same cause.
No argument was presented by the councillors as to why the comments were hateful, or indeed factually incorrect. Cllr Gilbert's concerns were simply deemed unmentionable, remarks which should not have to be read, tolerated, or thought about. Cllr Gilbert's name has been unfairly smeared, and those responsible can't even be bothered provide an explanation.
Is there any justification for such censorship which does not involve the claim that criticism or even discussion of ideas amounts to a personal attack on individuals? If applied to any non-religious ideology the ridiculous nature of this claim becomes apparent. Criticising the idea of a constitutional monarchy, for example, does not amount to a grave insult to the personal dignity of committed royalists – any claim that it did would be worthy of ridicule. There is nothing to justify religious viewpoints being treated any differently.
It is worth recalling the motivation of Cllr Gilbert's posts: to highlight injustices being done to women and LGBT people by those who employ Islamic doctrine as a justification. This, of course, includes people who are themselves Muslims, many of whom are engaged in their own battles against regressive religious dogma. By the logic of Boston's councillors, expressing solidarity with a significant proportion of the Muslim community is somehow hateful towards them.
Let us imagine that Cllr Gilbert's comments had instead been made by, say, an ex-Muslim lesbian. Would the councillors have disparaged and discounted them in the same way? If not, why not? Are the comments themselves hateful, or are they only hateful in virtue of being spoken by a particular kind of person?
Following the council meeting, Cllr Gilbert was invited by the imam of Boston's mosque, Abdul Hamid Qureshi, to a meeting where they could discuss his "assumptions", which he described as "speculative rather than factual" and "out of context and selective". Irritating and patronising though this is, the opportunity for dialogue should be welcomed. It would be nice if Mr Qureshi could also make clear his position on the supposed 'hateful' nature of Cllr Gilbert's remarks, or defend the right to freedom of expression despite his disagreement with what was said.
The people most likely to be grateful to Boston's councillors are religious fundamentalists, who now don't even have to kick up a fuss for free speech to be suppressed. As Boston's councillors have made clear, there's enough useful idiots who are willing to do it for them.
Anti-science textbooks teaching creationism used in schools
Textbooks which present the theory of evolution as a conspiracy theory are being used in UK schools, a new report has revealed.
Researchers from UCL found textbooks published by Accelerated Christian Education (ACE), one of the world's largest fundamentalist Christian education groups, presented climate change denial as a fact and described evolution as an 'absurd and discredited' conspiracy.
The latest editions of the textbooks claim to show evidence that human-caused climate change is not real. They say God has a plan to prepare a new heaven and Earth with a better climate.
Despite claims by the curriculum's developers that its materials allow students to make up their own minds about evolution, the textbooks describe those who accept evolution as making an "immoral choice", with their belief being "driven by a determination to sin and to rebel against God."
ACE materials also malign the scientific community and those who accept scientific findings about evolution, cosmology, or any other field that challenges young-Earth dogma.
The report also found students are not exposed to any ideas contrary to ACE's literal interpretation of the Bible until Year 9. This is contrary to the legal requirement that schools teach a "broad and balanced curriculum", the report argues.
Although 11 schools in England and Northern Ireland are officially affiliated with ACE, due to the secretive nature of the organisations involved the actual number of schools employing ACE resources may be substantially higher.
Independent faith schools have previously been subject to regulatory action after being found teaching creationism.
The report's lead author, Dr Jenna Scaramanga, questioned how schools which rely heavily on ACE publications passed Ofsted inspections, given that the materials "clearly fail" to provide a broad and balanced science education and to teach respect for different beliefs.
Dr Scaramanga also said the way children are taught science through ACE makes them more susceptible to believing other conspiracy theories.
NSS: 'Action needed from Ofsted and DfE'
Jack Rivington, campaigns officer at the National Secular Society, said: "This report should prompt further investigation by both Ofsted and the DfE.
"The promotion of creationism and climate change denial, along with the denigration of those who accept scientific theories, is clearly inconsistent with schools' responsibility to teach a broad and balanced curriculum, and promote respect for others.
"As the report makes clear, ACE's efforts at indoctrination can be deeply harmful to those on the receiving end. Authorities must now act swiftly to protect the right to an education for all children."
Image: From 7th Grade Science Pace Set by ACE
Barring humanists from RE committees is discriminatory, court rules
Local advisory committees on religious education may not exclude humanists, the High Court has found.
In a landmark ruling on Friday, the High Court determined that Kent County Council acted unlawfully in barring a humanist from joining a Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education (SACRE) as a full member.
Judge Adam Constable quashed the council's decision, finding it in breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits discrimination.
The case was raised by Stephen Bowen, a humanist with 'observer status' on Kent SACRE which meant he did not have voting rights.
SACREs oversee the agreed syllabus for religious education – the only part of the curriculum which is locally determined. All community schools, voluntary controlled schools and foundation schools must follow the agreed syllabus.
In 2021, Bowen requested full membership of Kent SACRE alongside religious representatives, which would give him voting rights. The council voted to refuse, arguing that religious representatives could not include members of non-religious belief communities.
According to Humanists UK, which supported Bowen, 66 SACREs have humanist full members.
Bowden argued that the Census 2021 found there are more humanists in Kent than members of the Baha'i religion, which did have a representative on the SACRE.
The judge found that the agreed syllabus "must include non-religious worldviews".
He said it was "clearly discriminatory to exclude" someone from full membership "solely by reference to the fact that their belief, whilst appropriate to be included within the agreed syllabus for religious education, is a non-religious, rather than a religious, belief".
He concluded that Kent County Council's discriminatory interpretation of the law regarding SACRE membership "is manifestly without reasonable foundation and not justifiable".
He added: "Indeed, it is antithetical to what the provisions can sensibly be considered as aiming to achieve, when that aim is now to be realised in light of the fact that 'religious education' must include some teaching of non-religious beliefs".
NSS: Case 'shines light on unsustainable and anachronistic RE'
Megan Manson, head of campaigns at the National Secular Society, said: "This is a welcome ruling, and not only because it establishes non-religious worldviews have a place in religious education and the committees which advise RE.
"It also emphasises that non-religious people are just as entitled to protection from discrimination as religious people. This is important to reiterate, as too often the principles of religious freedom and equality are narrowly and wrongly interpreted to exclude the non-religious.
"The case also shines a light on the unsustainable and anachronistic nature of religious education. A locally determined subject largely controlled by religious interest groups is inappropriate in 21st century schools. Reform is clearly more necessary than ever."
NSS welcomes independent review into Leicester unrest
The NSS has welcomed the government's decision to commission an independent review into last year's unrest in Leicester.
Established church hinders religious freedom, NSS tells UN expert
The NSS has told a UN expert that lack of separation between Church and state is undermining freedom of religion or belief in the UK.
NSS warns council on free speech after ‘Islamophobia’ allegations
The National Secular Society has warned members of Boston Council against characterising criticism of religion as 'hate speech'.
In a letter, the NSS expressed concern at comments made in relation to Councillor Mike Gilbert at the council's AGM on May 22.
In accordance with the council's tradition, as the longest serving member of the council Cllr Gilbert had been due to be appointed Mayor of Boston.
However, he was denied the role following accusations that a number of Facebook posts made in 2022 constituted 'hateful speech' towards Muslims.
The comments relating to Islam were made during the football World Cup hosted by Qatar, and raised concerns about aspects of Islamic doctrine which criminalise homosexuality and severely restrict the rights of women.
At the council meeting (pictured), Cllr Gilbert said: "I hold no prejudice against anyone on any inappropriate basis, but I do have specific views on politics, ideology, and religion that I am not willing to suppress in my political position".
Councillor Anne Dorrian, who was serving as mayor at the time, said that councillors had a political and moral obligation to "refrain from using hate speech". Failure to condemn such speech, Cllr Dorrian warned, could be interpreted as expressions of "approval or support".
Following the meeting, Cllr Dorrian said that Cllr Gilbert had been denied the mayoralty due to social media posts that people "just couldn't accept" with phrases that people found "offensive."
Other councillors spoke out in support of Cllr Gilbert.
The NSS said that by characterising this "legitimate criticism of Islamic doctrine" as hate speech the councillors had "unfairly smeared" Cllr Gilbert, whilst simultaneously undermining efforts to challenge religiously-based suppression of women's and LGBT rights.
It said that whilst individuals should be afforded respect and protection, ideas must be "open to scrutiny and debate", including "religious beliefs and practices".
NSS: Public debate must include ability to criticise religious doctrine
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society said: "Holding a critical view of Islam, or any other ideology, is not in itself 'hateful'.
"In a free and open society, religious beliefs and practices must remain open to scrutiny and debate. By characterising Councillor Gilbert's legitimate criticism of Islamic doctrine as 'hate speech', councillors have unfairly smeared a fellow councillor – and at the same time, made it more difficult to challenge the religiously motivated suppression of women's rights and LGBT equality.
"Councillor Gilbert has merely expressed an unfavourable view of religious doctrine he disagrees with. Free speech and social cohesion are harmed if this is considered beyond the bounds of reasonable public debate."
Banned teacher told LGBT pupils God could stop people being gay
A Christian teacher told LGBT pupils that God could stop people being gay, a panel has heard.
Joshua Sutcliffe (pictured) made anti-LGBT comments while employed as a maths teacher at the Cherwell School in Oxford, a professional conduct panel found during hearings which concluded this month.
He also showed a video which criticised men who are "passive" or "not masculine enough" to pupils while teaching at St Aloysius College, a Catholic school in Islington.
The Teaching Regulation Agency panel found Sutcliffe failed to safeguard the dignity and wellbeing of his pupils, and was therefore in breach of requirements to "uphold public trust in the profession" and "maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour". He was therefore prohibited from teaching indefinitely.
The panel heard that while employed at the Cherwell School between 2015 and 2018, Sutcliffe interjected in a conversation between two pupils to talk about a person who through God had stopped being gay because it was 'wrong'.
Both pupils felt this comment was directed at them because they identify as LGBT. They felt Sutcliffe implied they needed to be 'cured'.
Sutcliffe also handed the same pupils a leaflet entitled "Jesus and the Third Gender" during a Pride march in 2017, the panel heard.
The pupils said Sutcliffe would "often talk about religious matters" in maths lessons. This included making a comment that he was against gay marriage.
Sutcliffe also regularly refused to the preferred pronouns for one of the pupils, who is transgender. This included on the national ITV programme 'This Morning', which had the effect of identifying to other pupils that this pupil was transgender, when this was not previously common knowledge.
Sutcliffe is a prominent street preacher. His personal website says: "The homosexual act itself is an abomination and should not be condoned by our society.
"People who commit such acts should face a fine or even prison".
The panel heard that in 2019, during form period, Sutcliffe showed St Aloysius pupils a video entitled "Make Men Masculine Again" by PragerU, an American rightwing lobby group.
The video says "the growing problem in today's society is that men are not masculine enough" and "I don't know any woman of any age who is attracted to a passive man".
According to one pupil, no one in the class was given an opportunity to discuss the video or present any alternative arguments.
The panel said Sutcliffe "acted insensitively by failing to take into account the potential ramifications for pupils whose personal circumstances were not reflective of those portrayed as idealistic" in the video.
Panel: Teacher "failed to distinguish between his role as a teacher with that of a preacher"
In considering Sutcliffe's freedom speech, the panel said the right to freedom of expression is a qualified right and professional bodies "are entitled to place reasonable and proportionate restrictions on those subject to their professional codes".
They added: "As such, just because a belief is said to be a religious belief, it does not give a person subject to professional regulation the right to express such beliefs in any way he or she sees fit".
Recommending a prohibition order, the panel said it found Sutcliffe "failed to distinguish between his role as a teacher with that of a preacher".
NSS: Religious belief 'not a license to proselytise in all circumstances'
NSS head of campaigns Megan Manson said: "The decision to prohibit Joshua Sutcliffe from teaching is reasonable and proportionate.
"A person who thinks it is acceptable to imply to gay pupils that God can cure them, or to show pupils videos promoting sexist propaganda, is unfit to teach.
"As the panel rightly found, having a religious belief does not, and should not, give automatic license to proselytise in any and all circumstances – and especially when it amounts to targeting vulnerable pupils with homophobic rhetoric."
Thanks, but no thanks: the US can keep its culture war
American efforts to export regressive religious views under the guise of the 'culture war' are to be resisted, argues Alejandro Sanchez.
President of US conservative thinktank The Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, is a man on a mission. A keynote speaker at this year's National Conservatism (NatCon) conference in London, he bemoans the reticence of the British right to engage in "what we Americans call the culture war" – a struggle between groups with opposing and entrenched ideologies to dictate public policy. He now seeks to stoke the flames of social division here in the UK.
This should come as no surprise. Back home, Roberts champions a crusade against "woke totalitarianism" underpinned by "faith, family, freedom, and nation." And he speaks openly of his desire to overturn the constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the US, describing it as "a really bad social experiment that we're only beginning to see the rotten fruit of".
The "political success" of Florida governor Ron DeSantis, he claims, serves as a shining example of what can be achieved by harnessing the power of the culture war. And what is this success, exactly? A six-week abortion ban and the Protections of Medical Conscience Act, which allows doctors to deny gay patients treatment on the basis of a "sincerely held" religious belief.
Call me a cynic, but the spoils of Roberts' culture war and the long-standing goal of Christian nationalism – to impose conservative Christian values on our political life - seem curiously aligned. This thinly veiled rebrand makes perfect sense in the British context: for the first time in the history of the census, we are now a minority Christian nation. Theological invocations simply will not wash with the public.
Instead, religious objections to women's and gay rights are being repackaged and masqueraded as part of a broader backlash against 'wokeism'. This is not to say there are no legitimate criticisms to be made of the excesses of the left, only that regressive religious agendas should be recognised for what they truly are.
The Edmund Burke Foundation, the American organiser of NatCon, is even less subtle. Public life "should be rooted in Christianity", it says. And the "lifelong bond between a man and woman" is "the foundation of all other achievements in our civilisation". No prizes for inferring the logical conclusion of that.
Fellow speaker and evangelical Christian Danny Kruger MP said the quiet part out loud: heterosexual marriage, he proclaimed, is the "only possible basis for a safe and successful society". And though his naked homophobia was rightly rejected by the government, if the rise of Trump and attendant US Christian nationalism has taught us anything, it is this: when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
To the extent that the culture war is characterised by bad faith arguments, deliberate efforts to polarise, and the promulgation of echo chambers, it is to be opposed. Instead, we should aspire to reasoned criticism of opposing views and unsparing self-examination of our own.
In closing, I draw on the warning of NatCon's own James Orr. He implored fellow conference-goers to shield British children from the "norms and narratives from our cultural colonial overlords in the United States". We should take his advice one step further, and reject the American culture war wholesale.
NSS: Government commitments on abuse may not go far enough
The National Secular Society has welcomed government commitments to act on child sexual abuse but warned they may not go far enough.
Yesterday the Home Office published its response to the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Much of IICSA's work concerned abuse in religious settings.
The government's response said it would act on almost all of IICSA's recommendations.
While the NSS supports these recommendations, NSS vice president Richard Scorer, a solicitor who represents victims of child abuse, has warned they may not be enough to protect children from abuse in religious settings.
Mandatory reporting
IICSA recommended a new criminal offence for those working with children, or in a position of trust, to fail to report disclosures or witnessing of child sexual abuse.
Religious institutions have frequently failed to report on child sex abuse or even covered it up. Last week, an independent review into an abuse case within the Church of England revealed senior clergy, including a current and former member of the bishops' bench in the House of Lords, repeatedly failed to act on disclosures from the victim.
Scorer said because witnessing of child abuse and disclosure from victims or perpetrators are rare, a mandatory reporting law may be ineffective unless it also ensures reporting of reasonable suspicions of abuse.
Yesterday the government launched a consultation into implementing the new mandatory reporting duty.
Time limits for child abuse personal injury claims
The NSS has supported IICSA's recommendation to remove the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. The inquiry said cases should proceed irrespective of time delay unless the defendant can prove that the delay means a fair trial is impossible.
Scorer said this would be "an important win" because the average time delay between abuse and a survivor's disclosure is 22 years. Scotland abolished the three year time limit in 2017.
The government said courts can already disapply the time limit "if it considers that it is just an equitable to do so". It said it will publish a consultation later this year exploring how existing judicial guidance in child sexual abuses cases can be strengthened, as well as setting out options for the reform of limitation law.
Redress scheme for victims and survivors
IICSA recommended the establishment of an "accessible and straightforward" redress scheme for victims of child sexual abuse in England and Wales that is "sensitive to the needs and vulnerabilities" of claimants. It would be state funded, but with "voluntary contributions" from organisations implicated in abuse.
Scorer criticised such a scheme as "the worst of both worlds", because it would mean the burden would fall on taxpayers, rather than institutions responsible. He also pointed out that religious institutions such as the Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses "fight survivors tooth and nail through the courts" to avoid paying just compensation, so are unlikely to voluntary contribute to payments.
The government said it would launch a redress scheme after public consultation.
NSS vice president: "Crucial" that law has no religious exemptions
Scorer said: "We have long argued for a law to require the reporting of suspected child abuse, so we welcome the government's commitment to implementing a mandatory reporting regime.
"It's crucial that such a law contains no exemptions for faith-based settings, including disclosure in the confessional – a point the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was very clear on.
"Religious opt-outs would fundamentally undermined measures to protect children from harm. We'll be lobbying to ensure that does not happen."
