Newsline 1 July 2016

Newsline 1 July 2016

Welcome to this week's edition of Newsline.

The scene of Tuesday's Islamist atrocity in Turkey was particularly poignant for secularists, given that Istanbul's international airport is named after the first President of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who transformed Turkey into a modern, democratic, secular state. The people of Turkey are very much in our thoughts.

But the savagery of Islamic State isn't the only threat to Turkey's secular tradition. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, whilst ostensibly supporting secularism, is at the same time very much undermining it by attacks on the press and social freedoms, secular education and human rights. One Turkish politician engaged in the struggle to preserve Turkey's secular state is Safak Pavey. We're pleased to say that Safak will be addressing our 'Secularism 2016' conference later this year, and we urge as many Newsline readers as possible to attend to make sure her important message on the necessity of secularism in upholding international human rights standards is heard as loudly as possible. Tickets are available here.

The theme of the conference is 'living better together' – and never has finding a way of achieving this seemed so important. The political fallout following the referendum, including an apparent spike in hate crime, highlights serious divisions in British society. It goes without saying that the NSS unequivocally condemns all forms of bigotry – and wherever Britain's future lies, you can rest assured that we'll continue to campaign for freedom, fairness and human rights – and a secular UK in which all us, irrespective of our differences, can live together fairly and cohesively.

The NSS receives no funding from government or outside bodies – our campaigning is wholly supported by our members. This year we're celebrating our 150th birthday and the best possible gift you could give us is to sign up as a member. If you're already a member then thank you – and we hope you'll consider donating to our anniversary appeal to help commemorate our founder Charles Bradlaugh and put the NSS on a sound financial footing to meet the challenges of the future.

News, Blogs & Opinion

Government challenged over treatment of non-religious views in RE lessons

News | Thu, 30th Jun 2016

The Government has been challenged in the House of Lords over its approach to the inclusion of non-religious worldviews in religious education.

Lord Taverne, the Liberal Democrat peer and an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, asked the Government to explain why it had "condemned" guidance on the teaching of non-religious worldviews in religious studies.

The guidance, written by Dr Satvinder Juss – a Professor of Law at King's College London, was issued following the High Court's ruling that the Secretary of State for Education Nicky Morgan had made an "error of law", which could lead to the neglect of non-religious worldviews in secondary schools.

The guidance contradicts the Department for Education's own guidance which states that the ruling "does not affect how schools are teaching religious education".

The Government has argued that the case was won "on a very narrow, technical point" and said that it does not "accept the wider interpretation" offered in the Dr Juss' guidance.

Lord Nash, the schools minister, said that it was "inaccurate" to say that there was a need to balance the teaching of religions "by compulsory and systematic teaching of a non-religious world view to the same extent."

Lord Taverne asked "is it really the Government's view that children should not be encouraged to think critically and make up their own mind and should not be made aware of the views of a very large and growing number of people in this country who do not subscribe to any religion?"

In response the schools minister said that "all six GCSE-awarding bodies' GCSE content includes development of students' understanding of wider beliefs, including a non-religious world view."

He added that "All children should be made aware of the basics of all religions as part of a broad and balanced education. It helps you to respect someone if you understand more about them."

Lib Dem peer Lord Storey asked the minister to reflect on "why, if the Government believe that non-religious beliefs have a full and important place in religious studies, they have moved to encourage schools and those who set syllabuses to ignore a legal judgment that sets out exactly that position?"

Lord Harrison added: "Do the Government not recognise that their advice to schools may in itself contradict the law"

Lord Nash responded that "a much wider interpretation is being made of this narrow judgment than should be".

The schools minister also said that the Government was "looking at what more can be done to strengthen the curriculum to further prepare pupils for life in modern Britain through citizenship, PSHE [and] character education".

The Bishop of Chelmsford, describing himself as a "lapsed atheist", said that he welcomed the study of non-religious worldviews in education. He told the House: "I welcome the place of non-religious world views in religious education; they are very important.

Pharmacists must put patient care before religious beliefs

News | Wed, 29th Jun 2016

Secularists have urged the General Pharmaceutical Council to ensure that pharmacists set aside their personal religious beliefs if they conflict with a patient's medical needs.

Writing in a consultation response to the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) on "Standards for pharmacy professionals", the Secular Medical Forum said granting unrestricted rights to pharmacy professionals to express their own views places the rights of people who use pharmacy services at risk.

Secular medics said the professional standards must do more than call for "balance" between a pharmacist's "personal values and beliefs" and the "care they give people who use pharmacy services".

The SMF said that this language was "unhelpful" and "ambiguous" because of how "balance" could be interpreted by pharmacists.

"There is a significant risk that those pharmacy professionals with strong personal views, almost always religious" will favour their "own personal views," the Forum warned.

"The result of this may be care determined by the beliefs and values of the professional rather than person-centred care. This risks disadvantaging the person trying to access pharmacy services whose own values and beliefs may be overlooked in favour of those of the pharmacy professional."

The Forum called for the GPhC to provide greater clarity in their new guidance by giving examples to pharmacists and "clear advice" for situations "where conflict arises between a pharmacy professional's own views and that of a person accessing services."

If there is a conflict, the SMF said, "person-centred professional care relies on pharmacy professionals setting aside their own personal beliefs where necessary".

The SMF argued that in some circumstances religious objections could not be worked around.

Antony Lempert, chair of the SMF, said: "Where a lone pharmacist is working in a rural community it would be unacceptable to refuse to dispense or to try to redirect a patient to another pharmacy. The responsibility here lies mainly with the pharmacist who has such objections to make sure they do not accept a job which would place them in this predicament".

"There is a fundamental and important distinction between holding a belief and the unrestricted expression of that belief."

"It is essential to place reasonable limits on the unrestricted expression of the personal views of trained healthcare professionals," he said.

In a separate submission to the GPhC, the National Secular Society proposed that new standards for pharmacists should echo the decision of the US Supreme Court, which this week declined to hear an appeal from a pharmacy in Washington State which had "cited Christian beliefs in objecting to providing emergency contraceptives to women".

The appellate court concluded that the State had a "legitimate interest in ensuring that its citizens have safe and timely access to their lawful and lawfully prescribed medications". The court also accepted the right of a "religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny delivery, so long as another pharmacist working for the pharmacy provides timely delivery".

Keith Porteous Wood, NSS executive director, said: "Conscience opt outs that result in the failure to provide timely delivery of lawful and lawfully prescribed medications are not acceptable.

"Pharmacists are under a professional obligation to serve customers, and to permit such refusals could cause hardship and potential danger and potentially breaches their human rights."

Commenting on the US Supreme Court's decision, the American Civil Liberties Union said: "When a woman walks into a pharmacy, she should not fear being turned away because of the religious beliefs of the owner or the person behind the counter."

Sharia inquiry launched by Home Affairs Committee

News | Wed, 29th Jun 2016

The Home Affairs Committee has announced the launch of its own inquiry into Sharia councils in the UK, following the start of a Government review back in May.

The Committee has said that it will "examine how Sharia councils operate in practice, their work resolving family and divorce disputes and their relationship with the British legal system."

It is inviting written evidence on the "extent to which Sharia councils might discriminate against women" and why the councils are used.

In their inquiry the Committee will seek evidence on the "basic tenets of Sharia law with reference to family, divorce, domestic violence and children and how those compare to the same in British law."

Stephen Evans, campaigns director of the National Secular Society welcomed the Home Affairs Committee's inquiry: "It is good to see that the operation of sharia councils in the UK is being subjected to scrutiny from both Parliament and the Government.

"While many do sadly choose themselves to use Sharia councils, a massive effort must be made to ensure that everyone living in Britain can access their civil and legal rights under UK law. Nothing should be permitted to obstruct this."

When the Home Office announced their review of Sharia law in the UK they claimed that discrimination against women was "contrary" to Islam. The National Secular Society criticised the Home Office for involving itself in theological debates and for asserting what 'true' Islam was.

The Home Affairs Committee's inquiry will look at the "relationship between Sharia councils and the British legal system" and the "extent to which Sharia law is compatible with the principles of British law."

It will consider what role the Government could have "in overseeing or monitoring Sharia councils" and how "other, non-majority Muslim, countries have responded to Sharia councils operating within their jurisdictions."

The Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Keith Vaz MP, said: "The Committee has launched an inquiry into Sharia courts following much uncertainty regarding their role within communities in the UK.

"We will be hearing evidence from both observers and practitioners of these courts, and are currently accepting written evidence on a wide-range of issues, including the compatibility of Sharia courts with British law."

In November 2015 Vaz was recorded saying he had "no objection" to the reintroduction of a blasphemy law in the UK, but that it "should apply to all religions." In contradictory remarks he said "no" when asked if there should be blasphemy laws but then said "If somebody brings it forward in parliament I'll vote for it."

Reading Council proposes end to faith school travel subsidy

News | Mon, 20th Jun 2016

Reading Borough Council has opened a consultation on a proposal to end taxpayer funding for parents who opt to send their children to faith schools even though a nearer school is available.

In their proposal the Council says, "There is no legal duty for Local Authorities to provide free transport" to parents who send their children to a faith school which is not the closest school.

The Council currently provides free transport for pupils at a Catholic secondary school, two Catholic primary schools and one Church of England school.

"Since it is not a legal duty to provide free transport, the Council is proposing that the current arrangements will cease from July 2017. This will generate savings of £20k per annum."

If the recommendation is supported in the Council's public consultation, it has guaranteed that "All children who currently receive free transport will continue to do so until either the end of year 6 for primary pupils or the end of year 11 for secondary pupils" to minimise disruption for parents of current pupils.

Councillor Tony Jones, the Lead Councillor for Education, commented: "Reading council has continued to cover the cost of children travelling to faith schools even though it has no statutory obligation to do so.

"In the face of drastic budget cuts and recent changes in Government guidance we are having to review school transport provision and this is one of the areas we are looking to change.

"With a shrinking pot of money the council is looking at ways of efficiently delivering a school transport service for those who need it most. We are now inviting comments on the proposals we are putting forward."

NSS campaigns director Stephen Evans said: "The taxpayer shouldn't have to pick up the cost of parents choosing a more distant faith school for their child on religious grounds.

"Transporting pupils to and from faith schools encourages the segregation of young people along religious lines and represents an unfair privilege for religious parents. We're therefore pleased to see councils phasing this out."

Lancashire Council recently announced plans to remove its subsidy for travel to faith schools when a nearer suitable school is available.

Read Elsewhere

Asylum and religious knowledge: Why religious persecution can be hard to test

Asylum and religious knowledge: Why religious persecution can be hard to test

When a newly arrived migrant seeks asylum on grounds that going home would mean facing religious persecution, how can the host country test the sincerity of that claim? That is a hard question, especially if the migrant has only recently converted to a different faith. It's also a very topical one, writes the Economist.

Most American Christians believe that they are victims of discrimination

Most American Christians believe that they are victims of discrimination

Many Christians believe they are subject to religious discrimination in the United States. A new report found that almost half of Americans say discrimination against Christians is as big of a problem as discrimination against other groups, including blacks and minorities, writes Emma Green in The Atlantic.