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
Is Northern Ireland set to move away from religious segregation in schools?
Northern Ireland has long been a byword for the problems with segregated, faith-based education. There are good reasons for this. Over 90% of children in NI are sent either to controlled schools – which overwhelmingly cater to children from Protestant backgrounds – or Catholic ones, for children from Catholic backgrounds.
But this negative perception risks masking a changing reality. This is a time of great hope for integrated schools, with a balanced curriculum and where pupils of different backgrounds learn together.
An independent 2018 poll for the Integrated Education Fund indicated widespread public support for integration. It found that 67% of parents would support their school becoming integrated and most blame politicians (59%) and the influence of the churches (58%) for holding back progress. Ninety-one per cent felt that progress on integrated education since the Good Friday agreement was slow to non-existent.
In January this year the UK and Irish governments published the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which was reached after discussion with the major parties in NI and which restored devolved government at Stormont.
The deal said there would be an independent review of education with "the prospects of moving towards a single education system". It said the executive would support educating children from different backgrounds together. It said NI's current education system was "not sustainable".
And since the agreement was signed the Northern Ireland assembly has approved a supportive motion. During the preceding debate MLAs from different parties called for a secular education system and criticised segregation on religious lines.
Alongside the focus on integrated schools, a coalition of support is building for other long overdue educational reforms. Over the last year, the National Secular Society and the No More Faith Schools campaign have highlighted research supported by the Integrated Education Fund and UNESCO showing: the impact of religious discrimination on teachers; the problems with faith groups' control of religious education; and the gross inefficiencies caused by separate schooling.
In the absence of political leadership, integrated education has been supported by grassroots action and the integrated sector itself. Of particular importance is the transformation process, a democratic mechanism for school communities or leaders. Where parents and guardians representing 20% of pupils or the board of governors request it, the school must hold an independent ballot.
There is, as yet, no similar mechanism in the rest of the UK. Even where a faith school community may wish to move towards a more inclusive ethos – for example where it wishes to drop discriminatory admissions or a faith designation – there is no clear mechanism for it to do so. That would be true even if the governing body were to support it. This is at least one area where Northern Ireland can be a shining positive example to advocates of inclusive education across the UK.
Twenty-five of Northern Ireland's 65 integrated schools became so through transformation. Five schools have proposals at various stages following significant votes for transformation. We've set up local campaigns to support integration at Glengormley High School, Carrickfergus Central Primary School, Seaview Primary School, Ballyhackett Primary School and St Mary's High School in Brollagh.
The school communities' overwhelming support for integration is inspiring; 86% of parents at Carrickfergus, 95% at Seaview, 69% at Ballyhackett and 73% at St Mary's.
At Carrickfergus, one pupil told the consultation: "I think Integration is a good idea so no one feels left out. We should all learn together about each other and then we wouldn't be scared of each other anymore. Lots of people in Carrick hate Catholics but that is just because they don't know any. If Catholics and Protestants in Carrick went to our school together they wouldn't hate each other anymore. It's simple."
Three of the schools (Seaview, Ballyhackett and St Mary's) are each aiming to be the first Catholic maintained school to become integrated. Others have voted to transform in the past, but not been supported to do so.
We must capitalise on this momentum. Grassroots action needs to be supported by strong central leadership. This could create a massive push across all communities for a genuinely integrated and inclusive education system, and finally overcome the institutional inertia and special interests which have driven a gulf between hope and reality.
Why respect religious demands to keep pupils in the dark?
After a select committee chair urged more leeway for a faith school which has long censored textbooks, Stephen Evans says politicians with responsibility for education should stop pandering to religious interests.
This week Conservative MP Robert Halfon, who chairs the House of Commons education committee, leapt to the defence of a school that has become infamous for censoring textbooks.
Questioning Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman during a virtual meeting of the committee, Halfon raised the case of the state-funded Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls' School. This school has a long history of censoring information and knowledge that doesn't conform to its narrow Charedi, Orthodox Jewish worldview.
Halfon raised comments which Spielman had made in January, at the launch of the inspectorate's annual report. She'd accused the school of "airbrushing" Queen Elizabeth I from history by redacting information about the monarch from textbooks.
Mr Halfon said the school "felt the accusation was incredibly untrue," and had only blacked out a picture of Elizabeth because "it was immodest" – as if that's rational or reasonable in any case.
To her credit, Ms Spielman robustly defended Ofsted's criticism of the school in response. She said the redaction of materials showed the school had engaged in "widespread censorship", including by apparently gluing together an "entire chapter" on Elizabeth I. She said this example was part of "extremely extensive restrictions and redactions in all the materials that were available to the girls".
Halfon nevertheless appeared to side with the school. He claimed "the feeling out there from the faith community" – if such a homogenous bloc exists – was that Ofsted was "gold plating government guidance", "misrepresenting" faith schools and "going in with a very heavy hand". If he was seeking to illustrate that this 'feeling' was rooted in reality, he'd picked a poor example to back it up.
He also encouraged more dialogue to enable the school to plead its case. This may sound reasonable on the surface. But in the face of such unreasonable behaviour, calls for 'dialogue' act as de facto calls for inaction, and further disempower those seeking to do the necessary business of holding the school to account.
Mr Halfon's instinct to give the school a sympathetic hearing reminds me of the response from then education minister Liz Truss back in 2013 when the National Secular Society presented evidence to her of the same school censoring questions about evolution and human reproduction on exam papers. Truss respected "their need to do this in view of their religious beliefs".
At this week's committee hearing Halfon, too, talked about the need to "understand the needs and beliefs of faith communities".
But understanding the beliefs of religious groups shouldn't automatically mean we kowtow to them. Even if religious authorities wish to indoctrinate children with a particular worldview, the government's primary concern should be for the educational rights of the child.
But time and time again political leaders allow religious demands to trump children's rights and broader societal interests. Instead of recognising children's independent right to develop their own beliefs, successive governments have funded faith schools that allow religious groups to control what children learn and how they learn it. They've meanwhile sacrificed important principles on which human rights are based – like dignity, fairness, respect, non-discrimination and equality – to keep religious leaders sweet.
Many schools in Britain routinely force religion down children's throats. In some schools, children are shielded from key scientific concepts such as reproduction and evolution; sometimes they're forced into wearing headscarves. But it's not only the schools run by religious fundamentalists that we allow to ride roughshod over our principles.
Britain was one of the first countries to pass anti-discrimination laws. Today, discrimination on grounds of religion or belief is generally not tolerated. But legal exemptions have been granted to allow religious groups the rights to discriminate because of religion when they decide who to accept as a pupil into faith schools. Teachers, too, can be denied jobs because they don't share the faith of the school.
Lawmakers subservient to religious interests still refuse to abolish the unjustifiable and archaic law that requires pupils to take part in a daily act of 'broadly Christian' collective worship.
When compulsory relationships and sex education was introduced, faith schools were of course given a free pass to teach from their "distinctive faith perspective". That means some faith schools will inevitably continue to teach pupils that abortion is morally wrong and that homosexuality is "disordered".
And by allowing religious education to be heavily influenced by religious interests, lawmakers are denying students the right to objective, critical and pluralistic education about religion – leaving the subject hopelessly lacking in credibility.
Politicians should stop thinking they have to sacrifice children's rights in the face of religious demands. According to the latest British Social Attitudes survey the steady decline in religious belief among the British public is "one of the most important trends in post-war history". And even among the religious there's often plenty of support for secularist principles. It's time our political leaders and legislators caught up and ditched their default deference towards religion.
Conservative and liberal politicians alike have proved willing to accommodate the illiberal – as long as it comes wrapped in religious garb. But sacrificing liberal and secular principles for a quiet life is unlikely to play out well in the long run. Acquiescing to religious demands not only undermines individual human rights, it also sows division and facilitates separatism, segregation and sectarianism.
Individual religious freedoms should be respected and protected, but not at the expense of others' rights and freedoms. And we should be particularly keen to uphold this principle in our schools. But we'll get nowhere until politicians stop pandering to religious interests.
Charity and homophobia shouldn’t mix
The proliferation of religious charities openly expressing anti-LGBT views should prompt us to rethink religion's privileged position in charity law, says Megan Manson.
Last year, the National Secular Society referred 18 religious charities to the charity regulator over content on their websites. Many of these cases related to statements about LGBT+ people.
IslamBradford, Bolton Central Islamic Society and The Preston Muslim Cultural Centre all signposted online content that called for the execution of gay people. Meanwhile, the registered website of six Christadelphian charities seemingly condoned the death penalty for gay men.
In the vast majority of cases, this content was removed from the charity websites after we brought them to the attention of the Charity Commission.
These were particularly egregious examples of charities promoting extreme hostility towards LGBT+ people. But in fact many registered charities openly express homophobic views on their websites. It seems that charities are allowed to promote intolerant and stigmatising ideas about gay people – as long as they're religious charities. And there seem to be no moves from the Charity Commission to rein in these charities' communications, even though fostering homophobic attitudes surely does the opposite of serving a public benefit.
To illustrate this, let's just take three examples of religious organisations that registered as charities within the past six months that openly express anti-LGBT+ views on their registered websites.
Churches of God
This evangelical church has a number of branches registered as charities throughout the UK. The most recently registered is the Church of God in Romford, which registered in March. Its charitable purpose is to "advance the Christian faith".
Church of God's website says those who practice "homosexual activity" can "have no part in God's Kingdom" and that it is the duty of church members to support those who come out as gay in "what will have to be for them a celibate lifestyle, at least as far as relationships with the same sex are concerned".
In discussing AIDS, it contrasts those who have been infected "quite innocently (e.g. when receiving health-care)" with those who are infected as a "consequence" of "deviant sexual practices".
Christchurch Baptist Church
This charity was registered in November last year with the principle purpose of "the advancement of the Christian faith". It is an evangelical church based in Burton, Dorset.
Its website hosts a handout by Derek Stringer (a regular preacher at the church), titled "Thinking faith – Gender Identity". While it states Christians should "oppose any mistreatment of those who identify as LGBTQIA", the pamphlet implies that to be LGBT+ is undesirable and pitiful. It says identifying as LGBT+ "may in fact be sinful if it includes an insistence upon behaviours that express that attraction". It implies homosexuality is due to "human brokenness" and says "We mourn with those who struggle with same sex attractions, and with their families".
It also says intersex people (those born with sex characteristics that do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies) are "one of the implications of living in a fallen world".
The charity's anti-LGBT+ attitudes extend to the treatment of its own workers. In its church worker code of conduct document, it says "sexual immorality" including "sex outside of heterosexual marriage" may be grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal.
The Faith Movement
This Surrey-based charity was registered in February to "advance the Roman Catholic religion", which it does by producing and publishing literature and holding events.
A number of articles and blogs on the Faith Movement's website express homophobic sentiments. This editorial says that the "correct response" to any young person who comes out as gay is to say "No, you are not 'gay', what you are is a human being created by God".
The same editorial says homosexual "temptations" result from "a confusion of the affective and the erotic faculties" that "may be deeply rooted in neurosis". According to the writer, such urges "must be faced with humility and overcome with the tried and tested formula of prayer, self mastery through grace and, most crucially, with the help of chaste and supportive friendship".
Elsewhere on the website, a blog entitled "Civil Law and the Homosexual Person" compares the arguments of those who support equal civil rights for LGBT+ people with "those of slaveholders and those involved in the slave trade". It says "reparative therapy" (another term for the harmful practice of 'gay conversion therapy') is an "option" for gay people, and homosexuality "seems to result from fragmentations within the child/father/mother relationship".
So why the preferential treatment?
Charity law requires all to charities serve a public benefit, and to refrain from doing more harm than good. And even when organisations are doing some good work, it's reasonable to expect regulators to hold them to account proportionately for the harm they cause. So why does the Charity Commission continue to register charities that promote the deeply harmful idea that gay people are pitiful sinners whose desires arise from psychological disorder?
The answer is religious privilege. "The advancement of religion" is one of the 13 charitable purposes recognised by charity law. These organisations are, at least partly, charities because they promote religious doctrines – even if those doctrines are deeply intolerant and exclusionary.
The same could never be said for the secular charities that make up the bulk of the charity sector. Imagine the uproar if MacMillan, Save the Children or the RSPCA began spouting the same ideas about LGBT+ people on their websites.
Secularists have long been advocates for free speech, and for religious freedom. Many secularists who are appalled by homophobia would nevertheless argue that a religious organisation should be allowed to express homophobic views because freedom of expression must apply to all.
But the issue here is that these are charities, which are supposed to exist to benefit individuals and societies. That's why we grant them generous tax exemptions, enable them to claim tax back via Gift Aid, and expect them to uphold high standards and decent values. We generally would not tolerate secular charities promoting homophobic views. So why should we give an exception to religious charities?
The simple solution is a secularist one: separate religion and state in charity law, by removing 'the advancement of religion' from the list of charitable purposes. This would not prevent religious organisations that genuinely help people and society from registering as charities. This would also not prevent religious organisations from expressing their belief that same-sex relationships are sinful.
But it would help to end the privilege afforded to religious organisations in charity law, and the irreconcilable conflicts between public benefit and religious doctrine. And it would help to ensure all charities, whether founded on religious or secular values, are held to the same high standards and expected to uphold decency, equality and dignity for all.
You can also read the NSS's report on religion and charity law, For the Public Benefit?, published in 2019.
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay.
Cardinal Pell’s conviction has been overturned – but there are uncomfortable moments to come
Australia's top court has overturned the conviction of the Vatican's former treasurer for sexually assaulting two boys. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's plain sailing from here for him, says Keith Porteous Wood.
Cardinal George Pell, the most senior Catholic figure ever jailed for sexual abuse crimes, has been released by Australia's highest court. The court unanimously quashed his conviction for sexual assaulting two boys 20 years ago at a cathedral.
He was serving a six-year sentence. The jury had unanimously believed his accuser, one of the boys. The prosecuting QC said of his evidence: "It was absolutely compelling…. He was clearly not a liar. He was not a fantasist. He was a witness of truth."
Australia's highest court agreed – saying the surviving complainant was "credible and reliable" as a witness – but said the evidence as a whole wasn't sufficient to exclude reasonable doubt as to Cardinal Pell's guilt.
His alleged fellow victim had died from a drug overdose – without having disclosed the abuse allegation to his family.
Cardinal Pell has always denied the charges of assaulting the boys in the cathedral. He and others maintained that he could not have had the time or opportunity to carry out the assault.
He has however acknowledged the pain of his accusers and says he doesn't want his acquittal "to add to the hurt and bitterness so many feel".
Pell has said his trial "was not a referendum on the Catholic Church; nor a referendum on how church authorities in Australia dealt with the crime of paedophilia in the church".
He talks of "church authorities in Australia" as if they were some remote bureaucracy, but no one worked harder than him over decades to minimise victims' compensation.
The quashing of the Pell verdict has prompted some commentators to ask whether "conservative Catholics get fair trials", as a headline on UnHerd put it.
In The Times this morning, Melanie McDonagh claimed "politicians, pressure groups and pundits" had "made it near impossible for the cardinal to secure a fair hearing in the first place". She explicitly went on to say, in the final three words of her piece, "Pell was innocent".
But the court didn't find Pell "innocent", or say his accuser was lying. It only found that the jury should have entertained reasonable doubt over his guilt. Academics Ben Mathews and Mark Nicholas Bernard Thomas have made the case that Pell won "on a legal technicality". And it is not necessarily plain sailing from here for the cardinal.
According to The Tablet, he now faces a Vatican inquiry into allegations of sexually assaulting children. Then there is the prospect of civil proceedings. The burden of proof for civil claims is less onerous, so their success is more likely.
Also, sections of the Australian abuse commission's 2017 final report were redacted so as not to prejudice child sex abuse cases against Pell. They can be expected to make uncomfortable reading and there is a clamour for them to be released. However I have written to the Australian attorney general, suggesting this should be delayed so as not to prejudice any further criminal trial. Pell still faces other accusations, and it's still possible that further criminal cases could be brought.
Whilst this verdict will be a blow to Pell's accusers, we have to hope it doesn't deter other survivor victims from speaking out and holding perpetrators and the institutions that shield them to account.
Image: Cardinal George Pell in 2012, via Wikimedia Commons / Flickr (cropped), © Kerry Myers [CC BY 2.0]
Charities can’t sell snake oil. Or can they?
If we want to protect vulnerable people from being duped into buying 'miracle cures' from religious charities we should start by reforming charity law, says Megan Manson.
Recent news that a religious preacher has been exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to sell bogus "plague protection kits" made of oil and string has rightly sparked outrage. It represents the worst form of profiteering: abusing people's fear of this potentially deadly disease in order to sell phony protection at the eye-watering price of £91. Worst of all, selling this product could cause real harm by disincentivising those who buy it from taking proper precautions against the disease, or seeking genuine medical help if they start showing symptoms.
What makes this story even more outrageous is that a charity has been involved in selling the kits. The preacher behind the kits, self-styled prophet Climate Wiseman, is a trustee of the Kingdom Church: an evangelical registered charity based in London.
Technically, Wiseman has been selling the kits via a non-charitable entity called 'Bishop Climate Ministries', but because Bishop Climate Ministries and the Kingdom Church share the same address and online donations to the Kingdom Church appear to go into Bishop Climate Ministries' account, there seems to be very little separation between the two. The church's official shop carried a blog which promoted the kits.
This case caught the attention of the press because it relates directly to perhaps the biggest international crisis we've experienced in our lifetimes. But the Kingdom Church's involvement with the "plague protection kit" is not an isolated incident. Its online store sells many other oils that supposedly convey all sorts of benefits, from divine healing to avoiding legal problems. One wonders if Wiseman will rely on the latter if Trading Standards takes an interest in his activities.
The Kingdom Church is not the only religious charity involved in distributing 'miraculous' oil.
The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) is a massive evangelical charity with churches all over the world. The UK branch alone had an income of over £14m in 2019 and has churches in around 30 locations across the country. It too distributes"holy oil". The website claims the oil can be used for "the sick", "the emotionally distressed" and "things that represent difficulties".
What's particularly sinister about UCKG is the manner in which it promotes its holy oil and tickets to its worship meetings. It distributes a publication through people's letterboxes and on buses that's filled with testimonies about people whose medical conditions and wellbeing improved thanks to the holy oil and UCKG's services. The publication is called "Local News" and it looks and feels just like a local newspaper, from its layout to the paper quality to the fonts and pictures used. Only if you read the tiny text at the bottom of page 2 do you see that the paper is produced by UCKG.
You could be forgiven for thinking UCKG's publication is designed to dupe people into thinking it is a reputable piece of local journalism, adding credibility to the testimonies. While the deception may seem obvious to many after a quick examination, it will not be so clear to the more vulnerable – those with learning difficulties, mental health issues, or limited education or life experience.
Many would argue that promises of curing illness and life problems, without a shred of medical evidence, is not in the public benefit. So why have these charities been getting away with it?
Faith healing and charity law
Thankfully, the Charity Commission has told the NSS it is investigating the Kingdom Church over its "plague protection kits". But the commission may find it a challenge to hold the charity's trustees to account, thanks to the privileged position of religion in charity law.
When the story of the "plague protection kits" hit the news, Wiseman's response was: "This is based on the Bible - I'm a Christian and there is a way that the Bible says to protect us from plagues."
And because of the way charity law works, this could be a valid defence.
The most recent guidance from the Charity Commission suggests that, in most cases, any charity that claims to cure people must be able to demonstrate sufficient proof that its methods work. It says complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) organisations seeking registered charity status will need to "ensure that they have evidence to prove" their benefits, and those claiming to cure diseases "will need to provide robust medical evidence".
But other statements suggest there may be a loophole for religious charities:
"The courts have recognised some purposes relating to the promotion of faith healing as charitable. The Commission does not consider that these cases provide a legal basis for accepting purposes which include the advancement of faith healing (or any other form of therapy) otherwise than as purposes for the advancement of religion" (emphasis added).
So if a charity is registered as serving "the advancement of religion", a recognised charitable purpose in law, it appears it can conduct 'faith healing' as part of its activities without having to prove a health benefit.
The Kingdom Church is classified as a religious charity only. UCKG is listed under a number of different classifications including "religious activities", but none of them are related to healthcare.
So if either of these charities are questioned on the validity of their 'cures', they can reasonably argue that distributing holy oil is still charitable because it is done in the name of advancing religion. UCKG covers itself further by including a disclaimer, written in tiny text, at the bottom of one of its pages in its pamphlet: "The UCKG HelpCentre does not claim to heal people but believes that God can through the power of faith."
Prayers or petitions for healing are far from uncommon in religion – indeed, most mainstream religions engage in this to some extent. To prohibit any religious organisation from ever conducting or promoting spiritual activities relating to healing would be far too restrictive of religious freedom. So how do we strike a balance between maintaining the freedom of people to pray and to explore spiritual methods of promoting wellbeing, and protecting vulnerable people from being duped into paying large sums of money for bogus cures?
There's no simple answer, but reforming charity law would be a very good place to start. Removing 'the advancement of religion' as a charitable purpose would not prevent religions from holding 'healing' activities. However, it would mean religious organisations that want the many tax benefits from registering as a charity would be subject to much greater accountability. They would be under the same burden as secular charities to demonstrate a genuine public benefit, as there would no longer be an assumption in law that religion is inherently beneficial. And it would be clear that any religious charity claiming to cure or prevent disease would be required to prove it.
Whatever the Charity Commission concludes in its investigation of the Kingdom Church could have considerable implications for other religious charities, including UCKG. I hope that during its investigations, the commission comes to recognise the conflict between advancing religion and promoting a public benefit, and therefore the problem with recognising the advancement of religion as a charitable purpose.
You can also read the NSS's report on religion and charity law, For the Public Benefit?, published in 2019.
Image via Bishop Climate Ministries.
Secular attitudes and laws are assets against coronavirus
Religious fanaticism is hindering the fight against coronavirus across much of the world. But in Britain claims to religious exceptionalism are thankfully relatively isolated, says Chris Sloggett.
This Sunday, as the eye of the coronavirus pandemic came looming into view, a pastor in Louisiana claimed an attendance of 1,265 at his church. He's since continued to hold packed services, and claims "the constitutional right to congregate" defends them.
In Israel, the virus is spreading faster in ultra-Orthodox Jewish enclaves, where some rabbis were slower to close large gatherings, than in more secular areas. Most ultra-Orthodox synagogues in Israel are now closed but some sects are continuing to defy restrictions on large gatherings and refusing to engage in social distancing.
In the virus hotspot of New York in mid-March, as the authorities banned gatherings of more than 50 people, large Chasidic Jewish weddings continued to take place.
Pakistan has tried to limit the number of people at prayers to five in recent days, but compliance has been patchy. Last Friday a crowd of 400 gathered at one mosque in Karachi. Large religious events in Pakistan and Malaysia in the preceding weeks have been identified as sources of large numbers of infection.
And as Borzou Daragahi pointed out in The Independent this week, this problem doesn't just relate to the Abrahamic faiths. In India, for instance, health officials think a Sikh religious leader may have given the virus to up to 15,000 people. He ignored advice to self-isolate after returning from Italy, instead visiting 15 villages on a preaching tour.
So across much of the world, religious fanaticism of various stripes is undermining the effort to stop the coronavirus outbreak.
And it's not just making it harder to prevent gatherings of people. In some cases it's encouraging very risky rituals. In Romania and Georgia, some priests have insisted on continuing to use a shared spoon during communion. Georgia's Orthodox Christian church has claimed it's not possible to get sick from communion because it's a religious ritual. In Iran, a group of men filmed themselves licking the coverings which encase the tombs of Shia Muslim saints.
Some of these fanatics are obstinate; some are deluded or exploitative. Consider the US preachers who have minimised the threat posed by coronavirus on religious grounds or encouraged followers to focus on spiritual preparation rather than protecting their health.
But this has also highlighted a lack of awareness of the outside world in some insular religious communities, which is hindering the spread of accurate information. Deciding not to own a TV or smartphone, for instance, are legitimate lifestyle choices – but they act as distinct disadvantages in times like this. Suspicion of the secular authorities, which is often encouraged by religious leaders to protect their own power, is also unlikely to be helpful in a crisis.
At a time of such dramatic and unsettling change, it's not surprising to find some religious fanatics refusing to play ball, or just unaware of the importance of listening to health advice. And in time, as the reality of the threat has become apparent, much of the religious resistance – like the resistance that exists in some secular settings – has drifted away. The Russian Orthodox Church initially insisted it would only restrict activity if the Kremlin ordered it to do so; it's since advised worshippers not to visit churches. Some US preachers who initially decided not to cancel meetings and events have since moved them online.
But more alarmingly some politicians have indulged religious exceptionalism in the face of the virus. In the US state authorities in Michigan, Kansas and New Mexico have created religious exemptions to bans on public gatherings. Ohio's governor has publicly advised religious groups not to gather, but has also exempted religious institutions from a stay-at-home order. President Trump has said he wanted to see "packed churches" on Easter Sunday, before backtracking.
Iran, where the theocratic regime is reliant on the support of Islamic hardliners, has been slow to restrict activity at mosques and shrines. Brazil's president Jair Bolsonaro at first gave special treatment to religious services before a court suspended his decree.
What of the UK? A handful of synagogues and mosques remained open in the final few days before the government introduced its lockdown on 23 March. There have been stories of the police being called to break up prayer meetings since then (along with untrue and counter-productive stories of mosques remaining open after the lockdown). Some Orthodox Jewish groups are continuing to carry out circumcisions, albeit with reduced attendance. At least one religious minister has used the opportunity to sell 'plague protection kits' made of oil and string – a point the NSS has raised with the Charity Commission, which has since decided to investigate.
But these stories have been relatively isolated. On the whole we've been more fortunate. The government confirmed that its social distancing guidance applied to religious gatherings, just like secular ones, in mid-March. And groups including the Church of England, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Board of Deputies of British Jews responded helpfully. Places of worship have been closed on a widespread scale with minimal opposition.
In some cases religious groups' cultural norms and expectations are making it harder to uphold social distancing. But some community groups have acknowledged this and are encouraging their followers to follow public health advice.
And where there is pressure to relax the rules to accommodate religious sensitivities, it's not being accommodated. In Birmingham some large religious funerals are continuing to take place. But the local council has rejected a call to increase the number of people allowed to attend, despite a request on behalf of Muslims in the area.
With the stakes as high as they are, there's general agreement that religious freedom should be treated as a qualified right, rather than an absolute one. And the British people's relatively secular attitudes and laws are assets which help us to uphold that principle.
Politicians know they can restrict religious gatherings for the protection of public health; Article 9 of the Human Rights Act explicitly says so. Religious groups can speak for themselves, but outside observers can fairly note the influence of benign external pressures on them. They have more reason to think unhelpful claims to exceptional treatment will go down badly. And they have more incentive to focus instead on sending a positive message, about the good work many of their followers are doing in the face of the crisis.
The mainstream consensus over the boundaries of religious freedom may only be temporary. But when the stakes are this high, for now we should be grateful that places of worship are being treated equally to football stadiums, pubs and theatres.
Stuck at home? Here’s how you can learn about and support secularism
Most NSS supporters will now be confined to their homes over the coming weeks. But there's still plenty you can do to learn about secularism and promote our campaign for secular democracy.
All of us at the National Secular Society urge our supporters to get involved in whatever way they can to help to tackle the effects of the coronavirus outbreak. At this time everyone's priority needs to be to tackle this emergency.
We'll be helping out in our own ways, and our staff will be given the flexibility they need to take care of loved ones or volunteer to assist the response. If you're working in a hospital or school; giving your time up volunteering; or keeping an eye out for vulnerable family, neighbours or others, we're grateful.
We're also aware that the current lockdown leaves many people with their options restricted. Some are wondering how to keep their children educated at home for months on end. Others will lament the loss of public events and debates. Or perhaps you're just looking to remain intellectually active and, like us, keen to keep pushing for a more secular, democratic society as far as possible.
Either way, here are some ways you can use the resources on our website and social media channels in the coming weeks.
Our podcast series has been running a little over a year, but there are already hours of great content available for you to listen to at the touch of a button. Featuring some fantastic guest speakers, our podcast is a great way to hear secularist topics discussed in depth. Click here for our entire collection.
There are over 100 videos on our YouTube account. They include lectures from famous speakers, informational videos on secularist issues, and footage of our campaigning work and media appearances. We've also uploaded some of these videos to our Facebook page, and we hope to upload more in the coming weeks. Click here for our full YouTube library.
3. Check out Exploring Secularism
Exploring Secularism is our new resource to help people learn, and teach, about secularism and secularist issues. Although aimed at secondary school teachers, there's a wealth of information there for anyone else interested in the topic. And if you're trying to find material for your children while they aren't at school, these resources could be really useful. Take a look, and feel free to share your feedback.
Our petitions serve a number of purposes. In particular they're a great way for people who sign them to give their personal views and insight on particular topics. We select some of the most interesting comments for our weekly Newsline email, so make sure you leave a comment when you sign! See all our petitions here.
Consultations are an important way for members of the public to inform national and local government, and other influential groups, of their opinions on policy. Public response can have a significant impact on policy development, so we encourage everyone to submit responses, however brief. At time of writing, Renfrewshire Council is consulting on plans to add more 'faith testing' to school admissions, and The Sutton Trust is consulting on implementing school admissions policies that would create a fairer system. See a list of all current consultations on secularist issues here.
6. Keep up with the news agenda
Every weekday, we scour the media to monitor what's happening in the world of religion, politics and society. You can subscribe to receive our media briefing email on secularist issues every morning, to keep up to speed with all developments relevant to our campaigning for secular democracy. Click here to sign up. You can view an example of a daily media briefing you'll receive here, and see all past links to media stories we've included here.
And of course, we've published hundreds of our own news and opinion pieces on our website as well.
7. Learn about secularist history
We have an entire section of our website dedicated to the history of secularism in the UK, in addition to our own 150 years of history. You'll find stories such as the struggle of our founder, Charles Bradlaugh, to enter parliament, and how Bradlaugh and Annie Besant were put on trial for publishing a book on birth control. Click here to begin reading.
8. Read our arguments in detail
We produce a lot of newsletters, reports, and other documents, and they're all available to read online. For example we make the case for reforming charity law, and reveal the extent to which faith schools limit genuine parental choice. Click here to browse our library.
A lot of our campaigns are driven by individual members of the public who get in touch about a specific issue affecting them. Are you currently having a problem relating to religion imposing on your daily life? Let us know! We'll try to offer advice and even if you're not after advice, just letting us know about an issue will be very helpful to give us a picture of what's going on. Share your story here.
10. Qualify to do some research, funded by the NSS
We're keen to support original research that supports the evidence base of our campaigns work and improves public understanding of secularism. That's why we've established a scholarship of up to £5,000 for research that contributes to our work in some way. Find out more about how to apply here.
11. Connect with us on social media
We may not be holding any events right now, but we're still raising awareness of, and commenting on, secularist issues on social media. You can help to generate awareness of secularism and our campaigns by following our Twitter account or our Facebook page.
Many grassroots secularist groups are affiliate members of the NSS. Although they will all be limiting their meetings and events, it could be good time to reach out to an affiliate group near you and see how you can join in, make friends with like-minded people, and help them out. Click here to see our list of affiliate members.
In the meantime we'll keep on working as hard as we can, thanks to your support. All of us at the NSS hope you stay safe and well.
Image (adapted) from Free-Photos on Pixabay.
Northern Ireland’s new abortion guidelines are welcome but should have gone further
As the government publishes a framework for the extension of abortion rights in NI, Dr Antony Lempert welcomes politicians' belated willingness to defend women's right to choose but laments several missed opportunities.
On 23 February 2018 the UN committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) issued a damning verdict on the state of abortion in Northern Ireland. It concluded that women were subject to violence by virtue of the fact that nearly every woman or child who became pregnant had to carry the pregnancy to term. This was the case even where there was evidence that the foetus would not be viable and even in cases of incest or rape.
The following year, 2019, saw just 12 legal abortions carried out in Northern Ireland. In January 2019 it was reported that a 12-year-old girl had to travel to mainland Britain for an abortion notwithstanding the provision for abortion to be possible in Northern Ireland under existing legislation if there was a real and serious risk of permanent or long-term mental or physical harm to the pregnant woman (or child).
Prior to 2017, Northern Irish women or girls travelling to the mainland for an abortion were refused this treatment on the NHS; since then they have still had to make and pay for their own travel arrangements which has presented an insurmountable barrier to some women from accessing abortion services at all.
Religion has been a key factor in restricting these reproductive rights. The DUP has consistently opposed liberalisation of the law while explicitly referencing its "very strong Christian values". The Evangelical Alliance has long campaigned for particularly draconian restrictions. In 2015 the Catholic Council for Social Affairs was recognised as an "interested party" in a case concerning restrictions on abortion in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality.
Last year an act passed at Westminster legalised abortion in Northern Ireland. The government has since held a consultation on its implementation, which the National Secular Society responded to.
In this context, the new legislative framework announced by the government yesterday should be welcomed as a stride in the right direction. Finally politicians have shown a willingness to begin to protect women's right to choose and to stand up to religious efforts to impose dogma on those who don't necessarily agree with it.
Now women in the early stages of pregnancy will theoretically be able to access an abortion in Northern Ireland on the basis that it is their body and they don't want the pregnancy to continue. They will sensibly face no requirement to prove rape. Nor will they need to provide proof of foetal abnormality, nor to suffer the indignity of being dependent on the approval of two doctors, as per the legal requirement for all abortions in the rest of the United Kingdom under the terms of the 1967 Abortion Act.
The new framework says abortions will be allowed "without conditionality" within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Since most abortion requests are in the first 12 weeks, the majority of women with an unwanted pregnancy should soon theoretically be able to have an uncomplicated abortion in Northern Ireland. This is good news but the new legislative framework doesn't go nearly far enough.
Introducing a non-evidence-based, arbitrary cut-off point of 12 weeks will mean women who don't find out they're pregnant until later, don't learn about the foetal abnormality until later or girls who might not know that they're pregnant or might not be able to see a doctor independently, will necessarily present beyond 12 weeks. The provisions for these women and children up to 24 weeks will be subject to the same limitations as the existing set-up. And if a 12-year-old girl who by definition has been, at a minimum, the victim of statutory rape wasn't deemed suitable for an abortion, it isn't hard to imagine how hard it might be for other women and girls with unwanted pregnancies to access an abortion after 12 weeks. The 12 week cut-off also adds fuel to the fire of those who regularly call for a reduction in the time limit for abortion.
Out of the 13 CEDAW recommendations, one stands out as particularly pertinent and shocking: "Recommendation 86(d) - Make age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights a compulsory component of curriculum for adolescents, covering prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion, and monitor its implementation." In other words, some children currently raised in Northern Ireland are being raised in the very ignorance that feeds unwanted pregnancies, whilst abortions have been denied them. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is not to criminalise them but to prevent unwanted pregnancies through sex and relationship education and the provision of contraception. This recommendation is still awaiting implementation.
In June last year, I proposed a motion at the British Medical Association's Annual Representatives Meeting (BMA), coincidentally held in Belfast that year, calling for the decriminalisation of abortion throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. The motion was passed by a large majority and is therefore now BMA policy. Yet this new legislation, whilst a vast improvement on the previous real threat of incarceration for pregnant women and health care professionals, does not represent full decriminalisation. There will be large fines for doctors who don't follow requirements to report or certify abortions. Other medical interventions performed with the informed consent of the patient are subject to professional regulation with no additional certification. There is no medical reason for doctors to have to certify abortions.
Perhaps the biggest missed opportunity of all was for the new legislative framework not to have allowed for abortion pills to be taken at home. Implementing this would have followed the evidence as supported by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) that, for early medical abortions, there is "no medical justification for drugs to be taken in a hospital or clinic setting". "It is safer, more effective and better tolerated for women to administer the drugs in the privacy of their own residence" says the RCOG.
Particularly since this new guidance comes into force on 31st March in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is vital that the government makes an urgent amendment to the guidance to allow home-based abortion treatment, and this should apply not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. The combination of people self-isolating with reduced public services, a narrowed safety net and the risks of venturing outside to access treatment that could and should be available remotely is a deeply troubling prospect.
Let’s not replace a community school with a faith school in Surrey
Not far from Surrey County Council's chamber is a portrait of James Chuter Ede, a distinguished former member of the council. Chuter Ede was the architect who did most of the work for the 1944 Education Act.
This very significant act of parliament was developed during the war, whilst the Department for Education was evacuated to Bournemouth. Originally they planned to include legislation to abolish both faith schools and private schools in this country. But as they were already pretty stretched, as the war was still on, they left these out till later.
Some of the reasons why they considered the abolition of faith schools 75 years ago are still valid concerns today.
Concerns I share for proposals to open a new C of E school on the current site of a community school in Englefield Green.
This is an area I know well as I teach at Royal Holloway College in the village.
Englefield Green is not a typical Surrey village. It is a mixture. Englefield Green West is the most deprived ward in the Runnymede area and one of the most deprived in Surrey.
To make the only infants' school a church school would not just change the education of the children in Englefield Green but I believe have a detrimental effect on the area.
I cast no judgements on the staff of either school and these remarks are generalisations but serve as a warning as to what might happen if these two schools should be merged along the lines suggested.
Many faith schools are their own admissions authorities, which means they can give preference to children from families that share their religion. I know that doesn't apply in all faith schools. In Tower Hamlets, for example, there are CoE schools where nearly every child is a Bangladeshi Muslim. But there is evidence that very often faith schools do choose to give preference to families from any religion over those with none. Not only does this discriminate against pupils of the 'wrong' or no religion and infringe their rights by assuming their beliefs are identical to their parents', it could lead to segregation along religious and socio-economic lines.
Faith school populations are often far less representative of their local communities – for example, they admit many fewer children eligible for free school meals.
Faith schools are also allowed to change the recruitment and employment policy of the school. It is possible that applicants for teaching and non-teaching jobs are rejected or passed over for promotion if they are not of the 'right' religion, or of no religion.
So it could and does happen that non-religious teachers find that their career prospects are significantly reduced.
I'm also concerned about the curriculum in a religious school. Unlike the majority, community schools, which must follow a locally agreed syllabus, this Church of England faith school would be permitted to teach its own RE syllabus. And it not be subject to be specifically inspected by Ofsted; it would be inspected under the C of E's SIAMS schedule (which invariably means being inspected by the diocese).
RE in such schools does not have to cover other religions and almost certainly fails to give a fair or detailed account of non-religious views. Some ethical issues are often approached from an explicitly religious perspective, with all the potential for misinformation that this entails. The same can be true for relationships education, where certain aspects – if they are covered at all – may be taught in less balanced ways.
For all these points and many more, I do not believe it is in the interests of Englefield Green that the only infant school be a Church of England one.
Robert Evans is a councillor in Surrey. This is a lightly edited version of a speech he delivered at a meeting to discuss a planned merger between a Church of England school and a community one last week. It's reprinted here with kind permission.
Trevor Phillips’s suspension is another blow to robust public debate
You don't need to agree with everything Trevor Phillips has said about Muslims or Islam to be concerned at the attempt to render his ideas beyond the pale, says Chris Sloggett.
Trevor Phillips's suspension from the Labour party means he – temporarily, at least – has lost the chance to attend the party's meetings. But as those who support the decision have been quick to point out, he hasn't really been silenced. News that he'd been suspended emerged on Sunday; on Monday morning he was invited on to national radio and had a column in The Times addressing his case.
But this isn't really about Phillips personally. A high-profile target has been chosen to make a point about what is and isn't permissible in public debate. And you need not agree with all of Phillips's public pronouncements – it seems unlikely most would, given his work stretches back decades – to be concerned by the results.
The charges against Phillips are set out in a letter from the Labour party (Appendix A within this Policy Exchange report). Reading through them you'll find a series of thin accusations where statements he's made, often stripped of their context, have been interpreted as uncharitably as possible.
The most alarming and absurd accusation concerns the fact he laughed off the fact he'd previously been named as a contender for 'Islamophobe of the Year' at an event last year. This title is bestowed annually by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, which in 2015 gave the 'award' to the murdered cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo after the terrorist attack on their offices. Phillips's laughter was misleadingly portrayed as if it was a callous dismissal of Muslim suffering in some press outlets at the time, but the record has long been corrected. This charge in particular should be dismissed out of hand.
Most of the other charges refer to Phillips's views on Muslim integration. At various points he has said Muslims "see the world differently from the rest of us" and cited "the unacknowledged creation of a nation within the nation". He's said the integration of Muslims would "probably be the hardest task we've ever faced" and urged a "more muscular approach". He's noted that few attendees at a conference of Muslim scholars which he attended wore poppies.
He's also been picked up for criticising the official reluctance to link child grooming scandals to regressive social norms within some Muslim communities. This is a sensitive area of public discussion, particularly because the 'grooming gangs' phenomenon is used by far rightists against Muslims in general. It's no trivial detail that the Christchurch attacker, who carried out his massacre of Muslims almost a year ago to the day, had 'For Rotherham' written on the side of his gun. But it's also a source of understandable public anger that those in positions of power have failed to deal with the sexual abuse of thousands of girls out of fear of being accused of racism. And walling off discussion about it has not helped blameless British Muslims; quite the opposite.
In the wake of the charges against him Phillips's opponents have made much of the fact he's referred to Muslims as different. On Radio 4 on Monday he reiterated this, saying "Muslims are different and in many ways I think that is admirable". Some of us would prefer public policy to look past the religious labels, and public figures to employ more nuanced language. But refusing to discuss the fact that cultural differences exist is hardly the route to social harmony. And many of Phillips's critics might reflect on the parallels between his words and some of their own positions. How will advocates of separate schools for Muslims or special exemptions to the law for the production of non-stun meat present their arguments if we render it beyond the pale to suggest cultural differences exist?
You may find Phillips – whose career in public life goes far beyond the statements now being picked apart – an important contributor to public debate. Alternatively you may consider him inconsistent or ill-informed. But as both James Bloodworth and Kenan Malik have laid out, you need not agree with his views to be concerned by the attempt to render them beyond the pale. There is plenty of ground between presenting him as a pioneering oracle of truth-telling and dismissing him as a bigot. In between there's room for legitimate questions about or criticisms of his research or positions, and for pointing out error and disagreement. All of this is essential to the functioning of healthy democracies. Free speech must include imperfect speech.
Suspending Phillips denies this; it sends a message that his ideas should be driven beyond the realm of public debate. And this will also be the impact of the attempt to impose a vague definition of 'Islamophobia', from the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, on political parties, government, civil society groups and others.
So it's no coincidence that prominent proponents of that definition have doubled down since news of Phillips's suspension emerged. Labour MP Wes Streeting has said: "My general view is that if someone has fallen foul of the working definition of Islamophobia then it's their behaviour that needs to change, not the definition." That roughly translates as 'if I don't like what you've got to say, you should stop saying it'. It hardly allays fears that the APPG definition is a power grab.
And so we find ourselves discussing whether Phillips's ideas are even tolerable to debate, rather than – well, debating them, or a range of questions or issues which could be taking up time on the airwaves instead.
Who, on seeing this, is going to stick their head above the parapet and ask questions about the impact of regressive religious trends? And that's not just relevant to Islam or Muslims. Other social groups are watching, too. If we keep allowing these tactics to work you can expect more outrage-mongering, competitive offence-taking and attempts to shut down opponents.
Meanwhile attempting to contribute to public debate in good faith will become ever less appealing. Maintaining an honest and robust public conversation will become harder. And room will open up for a variety of unscrupulous culture warriors – including those who really do demonise and other Muslims and other religious minorities. We can only hope that at some point a critical mass of reasonable people see the value of a free and open exchange of ideas.
Image: Jörg Althammer/Trevor Phillips; CC-BY-SA Stephan Röhl; via Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 2.0]
The 2015 General Election
NI government responds to hate crime free speech concerns
Northern Ireland's Department of Justice has agreed free speech protections are necessary in hate crime laws, following concerns raised by the National Secular Society.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) ran a consultation on a new Hate Crime Bill for NI last year. It included proposals that would broaden the definition of hate crime, create a new aggravated offence for sectarian hate crimes, and potentially expand 'hate speech' laws to cover online content.
In its response, the NSS warned some of the proposed reforms could undermine free speech. Its concerns were shared by many other respondents.
Last month the DoJ published a summary of consultation submissions and its response. The NSS welcomed many of the DoJ's responses, which addressed concerns raised about freedom of expression.
- The NSS said the threshold for hate crime legislation should be of a "sufficient high level" when criminalising a person hate motivated offences, due to the serious potential implications for free speech. Our view was held by the majority of respondents. The Minister of Justice agreed not to reduce the threshold.
- The DoJ originally proposed to replace the 'dwelling defence', which protects private speech within homes, with a 'private conversation defence' for 'stirring up hate' offenses. The NSS said it saw "no compelling case" for removing the dwelling defence, a view shared by over 90% of respondents. It said the DoJ should instead create additional protections for other private conversations. The Minister said it would retain the dwelling defence and "modernize" it to strengthen protections for private conversations.
- Most respondents, including the NSS, agreed that the definition of sectarianism in hate crime law should not include political opinion, as this could risk the freedom to expression around politics. The Minister agreed to exclude it. The DoJ also referenced suggestions from the NSS and others for more fundamental changes to address sectarianism, such as in the education system.
- The NSS said any inclusion of sectarianism in hate crime law should be 'future proofed' to include denominations from non-Christian religions if required. It said crimes motivated by non-Christian sectarianism were already occurring in the UK, including violence against Ahmadi Muslims perpetrated by Muslims of other strands of Islam. The Minister said sectarian hate crime legislation would be 'future proofed' in this way.
While the NSS welcomed these moves, it expressed disappointment that there was no mention of reviewing NI's blasphemy laws. NI is the only jurisdiction in the UK with blasphemy laws. England and Wales repealed their blasphemy laws in 2008. Scotland repealed them via the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021.
The NSS said there is "always the risk" the blasphemy laws may be invoked to silence criticism or ridicule of religion, and that their presence in NI "undermines efforts to repeal blasphemy laws worldwide". Blasphemy laws are widely used to persecute religious minorities, the non-religious and those who speak out against the status quo.
NSS head of campaigns Megan Manson said: "We are pleased that the Department of Justice has addressed several of our concerns, shared by many other organisations, regarding potential risks to free speech in proposed reforms to Northern Ireland's hate crime laws.
"But the proposals miss a glaring opportunity to scrap NI's archaic and illiberal blasphemy laws. Scotland used its recent hate crime law reform to abolish them. NI should join the rest of the UK in doing likewise."
A coronation fit for a king, not a modern democracy
An exclusively Anglican religious ritual is no way to inaugurate a head of state in diverse Britain, argues Stephen Evans.
Whether in a republic, or in a constitutional monarchy like the UK, the investiture of a head plays an important role. It forms and reflects a nation's identity and can provide for a rare 'unifying moment' for all its citizens.
It is therefore regrettable that the crowning of King Charles will happen as part of an exclusively Anglican religious ritual.
It's long been thought that the upcoming coronation will be a more multifaith affair than the previous one. But this was always going to be a tall order. King Charles might have desired a more 'diverse' ceremony, but the Church of England had other ideas.
So, it seems the role of other faiths will be limited to performative subservience – Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Jewish peers presenting the king with various bits and bobs of coronation regalia.
According to reports, Baroness Merron, a Jewish peer and former Labour MP, will bring the king one of the coronation robes. Lord Patel, a Hindu crossbench peer, will carry the sovereign's ring. Lord Kamall, a Muslim Conservative peer, will bring some bracelets. And Lord Singh, a Sikh crossbench peer, will bring him a glove.
Clerics from other faiths will form part of a "faith procession" but won't be asked to give any readings or blessings.
Such tokenistic gestures are a poor substitute for genuine inclusivity. The plans demean other faiths and – as is so often the case with multifaithism – completely neglect the nonreligious and religiously unconcerned.
This coronation, like all others, is intended to project and entrench Anglican supremacism and privilege. That's the whole point. The rest is window dressing.
The archbishop of Canterbury will be the one to place the solid gold crown on the king's head. Away from the public's gaze, he will anoint our head of state with holy oil, a part of the ceremony echoing the divine right of kings. The king will swear oaths to defend the Church of England's privileges and doctrine.
The whole affair is positively medieval and deeply anti-secular.
The coronation will not only seem outdated to many, within the context of modern Britain. It will also be inaccessible to many in terms of what it seeks to represent. The archbishop is understood to be giving the king 'religious guidance' on the theological significance of all of this, but many of us are likely to be suitably bemused and alienated.
The Church of England regards the coronation as a "unique missional opportunity". But the danger to monarchy is that the optics of a religious coronation will render it as irrelevant as the CofE is to many Brits. This is especially true of younger people, who regard the Church as out of touch on social issues such as same sex marriage and gay sex which are still regarded as sinful by the CofE. Recent polling found that 78% of those aged 18-24 aren't interested in the royal family. Just 3% of the same cohort describe themselves as Anglican.
Despite being an exclusively Anglican ritual and legally unnecessary, the coronation will be paid for by the UK government using taxpayer money – a situation not supported by more than half of Britons. The National Secular Society's freedom of information request as to the expected cost was met with a refusal to disclose by the UK government, but estimates suggest it will run to many tens of millions of pounds. Against the backdrop of the Church and the monarch's substantial wealth, Graham Smith of Republic has described the state funding of the coronation as a "slap in the face" for people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.
Regardless of whether individuals support the idea of monarchy or not, a head of state's official accession should be inclusive and representative of the heterogeneous state they will be heading. A wholly Anglican coronation service is no longer capable of reflecting or responding to modern British society.
Many will no doubt be seduced by the spectacle of the coronation. The status quo and tradition will be defended by those who subscribe to British exceptionalism and quite like the idea of the UK still being a Christian country, including some minority faith leaders who benefit from the leg up that Anglican establishment can provide.
But King Charles is no champion of religious freedom. A genuine commitment to this important principle is inconsistent with the role of head of state being reserved exclusively for practising Christians. The monarch's religious titles of 'defender of the faith' and 'supreme governor of the Church of England' are underpinned by an assumption that all future monarchs will be believing Anglicans. This is statistically unlikely and runs counter to the concept of freedom of religion or belief.
The coronation exists to assert the Church of England's supremacy over the constitution, the monarchy, the state and its citizens. It's the ultimate privilege from which all other religious privileges flow.
A global audience will tune in to watch a ghost of what the UK once was, rather than what it has become. They may well marvel at the pomp and pageantry, but I bet they'd take equality and democracy over inherited power and religious privilege for themselves.
The role of head of state in a 21st century democracy should not operate like this. It betrays everything modern Britain should stand for. This coronation should be the last. And then the work to separate church and state should begin.
NSS questions “biased” government faith review
The National Secular Society has said a government review into faith engagement is biased and threatens to further undermine separation of religion and state.
Faith engagement adviser Colin Bloom today published a report which recommends the government increase its engagement with faith groups.
It says that following the Faith New Deal pilot fund, a grant scheme exclusively for religious groups to provide community services, the government should "consider ways of proactively partnering with places of worship in a Faith Partnership Charter". It said every local council should be signed up to a Faith Partnership Charter by December 2023.
The recommendations did not mention that serious concerns have been raised about the Faith New Deal pilot fund, including its discrimination against organisations without a religious ethos, and the 16 organisations which received Faith New Deal grants. One of these charities has since had its funding agreement terminated after the NSS found its chair called Islam "demonic" and "spiritual wickedness".
The NSS is also concerned that the Faith Partnership Charter will be based on the newest version of the 'Faith Covenant' created by the APPG on Faith and Society, which was updated to remove a clause prohibiting faith groups contracted to provide public services from proselytising.
The report also recommended the role of the prime minister's special envoy for freedom of religion or belief be expanded to "include the promotion and protection of religious freedom in the UK", as well as the government appointing an "Independent Faith Champion". The NSS said this would likely lead to religious freedom being prioritised over other human rights, including the freedom not to have religious views imposed on people.
The NSS welcomed some of the recommendations, including cracking down on religious extremism, high-control religions, forced marriage and unregistered schools.
It partially welcomed a recommendation to review chaplaincy in prisons and the armed forces, which are still Christian-centric. But it expressed concerns about the lack of references to non-religious pastoral care in these settings, as well as the recommendation that the government should "explicitly integrate the use of religious or theological reflection as an important part of the rehabilitation of some offenders".
The report is based on a review launched in 2020 which the NSS said was "designed to reach a conclusion which will please religious interest groups".
The NSS said the call for evidence central to the review was not fair or impartial, because wording around the review suggested only responses from religious people would be considered, or be prioritised over responses by people without a stated religion.
NSS: Review is "fundamentally flawed"
NSS head of campaigns Megan Manson said: "This review is fundamentally flawed and threatens to further erode separation of religion and state.
"While we welcome the recommendations to crack down on harms caused by religious fundamentalism, the report's clear pro-faith bias distorts its conclusions.
"If implemented, several of the recommendations would lead to more division and more imposition of religion on the public, supported by public money. We've already seen this through the government's discriminatory and misguided 'faith new deal' pilot fund.
"If the government wants a more objective and accurate picture of religion in UK society, it needs to commission a review that isn't designed from the outset to pander to religious interests."
NSS questions “biased” government faith review
The National Secular Society has said a government review into faith engagement is biased and threatens to further undermine separation of religion and state.
Faith engagement adviser Colin Bloom today published a report which recommends the government increase its engagement with faith groups.
It says that following the Faith New Deal pilot fund, a grant scheme exclusively for religious groups to provide community services, the government should "consider ways of proactively partnering with places of worship in a Faith Partnership Charter". It said every local council should be signed up to a Faith Partnership Charter by December 2023.
The recommendations did not mention that serious concerns have been raised about the Faith New Deal pilot fund, including its discrimination against organisations without a religious ethos, and the 16 organisations which received Faith New Deal grants. One of these charities has since had its funding agreement terminated after the NSS found its chair called Islam "demonic" and "spiritual wickedness".
The NSS is also concerned that the Faith Partnership Charter will be based on the newest version of the 'Faith Covenant' created by the APPG on Faith and Society, which was updated to remove a clause prohibiting faith groups contracted to provide public services from proselytising.
The report also recommended the role of the prime minister's special envoy for freedom of religion or belief be expanded to "include the promotion and protection of religious freedom in the UK", as well as the government appointing an "Independent Faith Champion". The NSS said this would likely lead to religious freedom being prioritised over other human rights, including the freedom not to have religious views imposed on people.
The NSS welcomed some of the recommendations, including cracking down on religious extremism, high-control religions, forced marriage and unregistered schools.
It partially welcomed a recommendation to review chaplaincy in prisons and the armed forces, which are still Christian-centric. But it expressed concerns about the lack of references to non-religious pastoral care in these settings, as well as the recommendation that the government should "explicitly integrate the use of religious or theological reflection as an important part of the rehabilitation of some offenders".
The report is based on a review launched in 2020 which the NSS said was "designed to reach a conclusion which will please religious interest groups".
The NSS said the call for evidence central to the review was not fair or impartial, because wording around the review suggested only responses from religious people would be considered, or be prioritised over responses by people without a stated religion.
NSS: Review is "fundamentally flawed"
NSS head of campaigns Megan Manson said: "This review is fundamentally flawed and threatens to further erode separation of religion and state.
"While we welcome the recommendations to crack down on harms caused by religious fundamentalism, the report's clear pro-faith bias distorts its conclusions.
"If implemented, several of the recommendations would lead to more division and more imposition of religion on the public, supported by public money. We've already seen this through the government's discriminatory and misguided 'faith new deal' pilot fund.
"If the government wants a more objective and accurate picture of religion in UK society, it needs to commission a review that isn't designed from the outset to pander to religious interests."
Government terminates funding of “hate speech” Christian group
The government has ended its funding agreement with a charity whose chair called Islam "demonic" after the National Secular Society raised concerns.
The NSS contacted Baroness Scott of Bybrook, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), after it found a video of Zion Projects chair and trustee Danny Stupple calling Islam "a very strong force of spiritual wickedness".
The DLUHC awarded Zion Projects £43,220 last year as part of the government's 'Faith New Deal' fund exclusively for religious groups to deliver public services. Sixteen organisations out of 351 applicants were awarded grants.
In a letter to the NSS yesterday, Baroness Scott said the comments made by Stupple were "abhorrent".
She said: "I strongly condemn them. The Government takes hate speech against any group or individual extremely seriously."
She said the DLUHC had investigated the issue, and the Faith New Deal Grant Funding Agreement with the charity has been terminated.
Zion Projects trustee: Islamic prayers are "the enemy" trying to use the Covid-10 pandemic
In a now-removed video (pictured) on Vimeo, which opened with the Zion Projects logo, Stupple responded to a question about Islamic 'calls to prayer' being broadcast during lockdown by saying "a very strong force of spiritual wickedness known as Islam is engaging in warfare against the Lord with its open air prayers".
He said that Islamic prayers are "one example" of "the enemy" trying to use the Covid-19 pandemic, adding that the Islamic system of belief "is truly demonic".
In the same video, Stupple also suggested God used the pandemic to "make the point of the value of life" because he anticipated "the same amount of babies being saved as the number of people who die" as a result of women being unable to get abortions during lockdown.
Last month Hampshire County Council told the NSS it was conducting an "urgent review" into its relationship with Zion Projects, which it gave £19,750 last year.
The 'Faith New Deal' fund
The government's Faith New Deal pilot scheme was launched in 2021 for faith-based organisations that provide community services to "tackle issues affecting the most vulnerable".
The NSS has criticised the scheme from the outset as discriminatory, because groups with no religious ethos were ineligible for funding. Several of the groups funded by the Faith New Deal require workers and volunteers to be Christians.
It has also raised concerns about groups proselytising to vulnerable people.
NSS: Government 'should never have launched discriminatory fund for faith groups in the first place'
The NSS has replied to Baroness Scott asking if the DLUHC will "review the viability of the 'faith new deal' and 'faith compact' schemes, and any other related projects, and ensure all future funding projects for community services are not based on faith affiliation".
NSS head of campaigns Megan Manson said: "We welcome the government's decision to terminate its 'faith new deal' funding of Zion Projects. It is completely inappropriate for the government to fund an organisation whose chair makes such divisive and hostile comments.
"The whole sorry affair reveals why the government should never have launched a discriminatory fund exclusively for faith groups to deliver public services in the first place.
"The government should cease its 'faith new deal' project and instead award funds to community groups based on the quality of their provision and their commitment to the values of equality and human rights – not which gods, if any, they believe in."
Press coverage:
- iNews: Christian charity whose chairman called Islam 'demonic' has Government funding pulled
- Third Sector: Government pulls funding from faith charity over 'abhorrent' comments
- Civil Society: Government terminates charity's funding after 'hate speech'
- Third Force News: UK Government terminates funding of "hate speech" Christian group
Hospital chaplains: unfair, unevidenced, unnecessary?
NSS research shows the NHS significantly cut real-terms chaplaincy spending between 2009 and 2021. This is a step in the right direction – but £29m a year is still far too much to be forking out on a religious service, argues Dr Alejandro Sanchez.
National Secular Society research has found that in 2020/21, the NHS spent £29.7m on chaplaincy. In absolute terms this is not dissimilar from the £29m spend in 2009/2010. When adjusted for inflation, however, this represents a 20.3% real-terms cut.
It would seem the NHS has deprioritised funding for chaplaincy – and this is no bad thing.
A new report from the Nuffield Trust says public satisfaction with the NHS has slumped to its lowest level ever since surveys began in 1983. Waiting times, staff shortages and inadequate funding are the top sources of dissatisfaction. Increasing NHS staff, making it easier to get GP appointments and improving waiting times for operations should be the top priorities, according to about half of those surveyed. There are several other priority areas identified, but chaplaincy, or even general pastoral care, are not among them.
The NSS has long questioned the wisdom of using the already over-stretched NHS budget on providing a religion-specific service with contestable health benefits. We don't deny that providing spiritual and pastoral care to patients is deeply compassionate act which brings comfort to people at their lowest. But when the NHS is struggling more than ever, is it justifiable to continue spending millions on what's first and foremost a religious activity?
Unfair
In 2020/21, the NHS employed 910 chaplains. Of the 460 that data was available for, over 78% were Christian. This is entirely incongruous with last year's census data which revealed England and Wales are minority Christian countries for the first time. If the NHS is to employ chaplains, it should, at the very least, ensure that they are representative of the population they minister to.
The overrepresentation of Christian chaplains comes as no surprise when one examines how chaplaincy roles are advertised. A 2020 report by the Network for Pastoral, Spiritual, and Religious Care in Health found Christian chaplains enjoy "unfair advantages", including job specifications that use Christian criteria such as "ordination and endorsement from a Christian authorising body." No wonder then that the Church of England was the only faith group to reject the findings of the report.
Unevidenced
There is no compelling evidence that spending more on chaplains results in better outcomes for patients. Previous NSS research examined whether NHS trusts that spent more on chaplaincy had better results as measured by two benchmarks. No statistically significant relationship was established between higher chaplaincy spend and either mortality rates or 'Standards for Better Health' – a measure of quality of service and use of resources. The report concluded that chaplaincy spending could be cut by £18m without detriment to patient outcomes.
With the NHS on its knees and staff morale at all-time lows, surely the system would benefit by reallocating the chaplaincy budget to employ over 1,000 more junior nurses. And the notion that junior chaplains may be paid £9,000 more than newly registered nurses cannot be right.
Unnecessary
The key attribute of any successful hospital chaplain is the ability to empathise with and relate to the patient in front of them. They must provide support to the patient in their hour of need in a friendly and non-judgemental way. Religiosity is in no way a pre-requisite of these skills.
In 2020, an Catholic NHS chaplain was accused of telling a gay patient he "should not be with his husband" and he "would go to hell". After his contract was ended for budgetary reasons, the chaplain in question said the NHS "were not prepared to tolerate having a chaplain on site who would not affirm what the Catholic church teaches to be a sin."
Furthermore, a 'Caring for the Hindu patient' leaflet, produced by the chaplaincy section of Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, perpetuates hierarchical and discriminatory aspects of the Hindu caste system. It describes the Harijan caste as "the lowest Hindu caste (untouchables). Menstruating women and mourners can be seen as ritually unclean and therefore untouchable." By contrast, the Brahmin are the "highest Hindu caste".
While I am in no way suggesting that all chaplains foist religious dogma upon their patients, these cases certainly serve as a cautionary tale of the risk in mixing faith and healthcare.
What's perhaps even more disturbing is that chaplaincy opens the doors for those with more sinister agendas – such as Jehovah's Witness elders who want to ensure members of their congregation who happen to be hospitalised don't receive a blood transfusion, even if this means death.
In an increasingly diverse and irreligious society such as ours, it makes little sense to organise patients' pastoral care around religious identities. While it should remain the prerogative of religious groups themselves to fund religious care, the appointment of NHS pastoral support staff must become separate from the religious affiliation of the applicant. When considering how to reform the NHS for greater fairness, effectiveness and best use of limited public funds, chaplaincy must be one area up for review.
Special thanks to Dominic Wirdnam and Tom Shaw for their research into chaplaincy spending in the NHS.
NI faith schools cost taxpayer extra £226mn every year
Northern Ireland's religiously divided education system costs taxpayers £226mn extra each year, a new study has revealed.
The research from Ulster University, which was part funded by the Integrated Education Fund, examined the additional costs incurred by educating children from Catholic and Protestant backgrounds separately.
It found that the division of schooling along sectarian lines leads to the unnecessary duplication of services such as school transport, as well as increased administration expenses caused by Northern Ireland's "complicated educational structures".
A general excess of unfilled places caused by separating schools to "cater for various communities" also increases expenditure needlessly.
This duplication of institutions is present even in small or rural settlements, with two sets of teachers "teaching the same curriculum in each school, often to very small classes" along with the "duplication of principals and support staff".
Northern Ireland has a high proportion of small primary schools, which the research suggested may result from this kind of duplication.
The research estimated the total additional cost of the divided education system to be around "£600,000 every day of the year" – though it also allowed for the possibility that the number could be even higher.
In addition to this public expense, the research estimated that personal costs for car owners caused by the need to travel greater distances to a school of the 'relevant' religious character was in excess of £20mn each year.
This additional, unnecessary travel is thought to be around 130mn miles each year, leading to a "considerable environmental impact" and emitting "more than 9,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide".
Around 92% of children and young people in Northern Ireland continue to be educated separately, despite the existence of widespread support for integrated education.
The vast majority of schools have very few pupils from the 'other' community, and around 30% of schools do not have any representatives of the other community whatsoever.
In addition to the financial savings, the research also said there were likely "considerable social benefits" to educating children together, including the reduction of prejudice against racial and religious groups.
It also suggested that integrated education's improvements to social cohesion would render the work of organisations which exist solely to "ameliorate the divisions in [NI] society" unnecessary.
The costs for such organisations, which are often funded through the Department of Education, can be substantial. For instance, the cost of Shared Education programmes, which attempt to bring communities together in schools, totalled £191.25 million between 2020 and 2022.
The report argues that removing "the need to devise ways of children and young people learning about each other outside school", in addition to addressing the issue of duplication, could create considerable additional savings.
Despite these potential benefits, the research notes that "pressure groups on either side strive to retain schools to serve their 'own' community."
NSS: 'We can't afford to continue religiously segregating schools"
Jack Rivington, campaigns officer at the National Secular Society, said: "This new research clearly sets out how dividing schools on the basis of faith is bad for children's education, bad for social cohesion, and even bad for the environment.
"Every penny currently wasted on pandering to religious sectarianism would be far better invested in integrated schools which educate children together, irrespective of their background.
"It's evident that the majority of citizens in Northern Ireland support such measures - the government should listen to public opinion and prioritise the interests of children, not the misplaced priorities of religious lobbyists."
Image: Aubrey Dale, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Regulators halt advert plans following NSS censorship concerns
Regulators have abandoned proposed new rules for advertising after the National Secular Society warned they may result in greater religious censorship.
The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP), which are responsible for writing advertising regulation guidelines, have this month announced they will not adopt stricter guidelines around protected characteristics defined by equality law.
The proposals, announced in 2021, said marketers and broadcasters "must have particular regard to the likelihood of causing harm" to people with protected characteristics including "religion or belief".
The NSS said the rules could "inadvertently have a detrimental effect on the public – including on the basis of their protected characteristics" in response to a consultation on the proposals.
The consultation document did not define "harm", saying it "is a commonly understood term".
The NSS said this meant a religious person could argue they were 'harmed' by an advert that offended their beliefs. This could lead to censorship of depictions of people representing other protected characteristics.
It cited past examples of such censorship, including an advert for Antonio Federici ice cream banned by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), the regulator which enforces the CAP code, in 2010.
The advert (pictured) showed two priests who appeared to be on the verge of kissing, which ASA said was potentially "offensive to Catholics". The NSS warned such censorship fuels "homophobic social narratives that there is something inherently offensive, shameful and immoral about being gay".
The NSS recommended that CAP and BCAP "re-consider the necessity of these additional rules" and "provide greater clarity" as to what is meant by 'harm'.
In a statement on the outcome of their consultation, CAP and BCAP said that having "carefully reviewed" the responses to the consultation, they concluded that their codes' existing rules on social responsibility and harm "are adequate in protecting against or reducing the likelihood of harm arising from advertising and other marketing communications".
They added that they will "continue to introduce specific, detailed guidance on preventing harm to particular groups sharing one or more of the protected characteristics in response to robust evidence of real-world harm to those groups being caused by advertising".
NSS: Censorship "can stigmatise and harm" the very people who need protection
NSS head of campaigns Megan Manson said: "We welcome CAP and BCAP's decision to abandon the proposed rules which, while well-intended, risked greater censorship of material that may offend religious beliefs.
"This in turn can stigmatise and harm the very people that CAP and BCAP seek to protect.
"We are grateful to CAP and BCAP for taking our concerns seriously and concluding that their existing comprehensive rules are adequate to ensure people are, rightly, protected from harm."
Faith school told pupils about “negative impact” of homosexuality
A faith school discussed the "negative impact of homosexuality" with pupils as part of its response to allegations of sexual harassment.
In a new inspection report, Ofsted said that Darul Uloom London School's response to "emerging allegations of sexual harassment" made by pupils had been "insensitive" and may stop children discussing similar allegations in future.
Darul Uloom is an independent Islamic boarding school in Chislehurst, Kent for boys aged 11-19.
In relation to an incident concerning "alleged behaviour of one child towards another child", Ofsted said the school's response did not demonstrate "the best safeguarding practices" by focusing on the 'negative effects' homosexuality was having on the school.
Ofsted also said that the school's approach to the incident had not been "child centred".
In its safeguarding and child protection policy, the school claims to be an "open environment where young people feel safe to share information about anything that is upsetting or worrying them". It also said it had a "strong and positive PSHE/RSHE curriculum" which tackles issues including "prejudiced behaviour".
The "safeguarding of children from sexual harassment" was described by Ofsted as "an area for further improvement" at the school.
Ofsted also noted that "serious incidents" which occurred at the school since the last inspection are under investigation by the appropriate authorities and that school leaders were working "closely with partner agencies to address any safeguarding concerns and allegations against staff members".
Ofsted said that it does not have the power to investigate incidents of this kind.
Darul Uloom's leadership was also described in the report has having a "clear vision" for the school centred around the "Islamic faith and ethos".
The school has since received a warning notice from the Department for Education. Notices are issued when Ofsted or the Independent Schools Inspectorate identify breaches of the independent school standards.
Following a notice being issued, schools must submit an action plan on how they intend to rectify the identified failings and can be closed if improvements are not made.
Recent figures from the DfE revealed that independent schools with a faith ethos are four times more likely to be issued with warning notices than their non-religiously affiliated counterparts.
NSS: 'Role of faith ethos deeply troubling'
Jack Rivington, campaigns officer at the National Secular Society, said: "The incidents described by Ofsted in this report are highly concerning, and raise questions regarding the extent to which the school's faith ethos is interfering with necessary and requisite safeguarding measures.
"Describing the 'negative impact of homosexuality' with students in response to allegations of sexual harassment being made by a child is utterly unacceptable, and it is appalling to think that this incident may discourage students from coming forward with similar allegations in future.
"Religious moralising should never be prioritised over the wellbeing of children. The operations of this school should now be closely reviewed to ensure that students are properly safeguarded."
Last person executed for blasphemy honoured in France
A statue of François-Jean de la Barre, the last person executed for blasphemy in France, has been symbolically erected in front of the Basilica of Sacré Coeur in Montmartre, Paris.
François-Jean de la Barre, also known as the Chevalier de La Barre, was executed at the age of 19 in 1766 for failing to doff his hat in front of a religious procession.
He was tortured, beheaded and burnt with a copy of Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary nailed to his torso.
The first statue of La Barre was erected in 1897 in front of the Sacré Coeur but was removed under pressure from Catholic Church. It was melted down by the Nazis to make cannons.
The unveiling ceremony for the new statue (pictured) was part of a two-day international conference on secularism in Paris organised by La Fédération nationale de la libre pensée.
National Secular Society president Keith Porteous Wood and chief executive Stephen Evans both spoke at the conference. Keith discussed recent campaigning to hold religious institutions to account for child abuse.
Stephen gave an overview of the situation in the United Kingdom, where the Church of England is established by law. Its bishops sit as of right in the legislature, the head of state is 'Defender of the faith', and worship is mandated in state schools.
The diverse arrangements of church and state in different countries were discussed by speakers from a range of countries, including France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain and the United States.
Many speakers highlighted the unjust privileges stemming from concordats: agreements or treaties between the Vatican and a secular government.
Delegates committed to act in their respective countries to achieve the effective separation of religion and state, to promote freedom of conscience for all, and for the abolition of all concordats and blasphemy laws.
NSS chief executive: "A reminder of the importance of defending liberal principles and challenging religious privileges"
Speaking after the conference, NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said: "Both globally and at home institutionalised and fundamentalist religion remains a serious threat to freedom of belief, expression and choice.
"This conference served as a reminder of the importance of defending liberal principles and challenging religious privileges to ensure the flourishing of human rights for all.
"I thank Libre Pensée for putting together such a stimulating event and memorable commemoration of Chevalier de La Barre, which serves not only as a reflection on past horrors, but also a commitment to the future of free expression."
