Impartiality of Scottish judiciary undermined by religious ceremonies, say NSS

News | Fri, 3rd May 2013

The National Secular Society has written to Kenny MacAskill MSP, the Scottish Government's Cabinet Secretary for Justice to draw his attention to a possible undermining of the impartiality, integrity and independence of the Scottish judiciary.

The NSS complaint relates to two ceremonies, the Red Mass (Catholic) and the 'Kirking of the Court' (Protestant). At the ceremonies, which are attended by all levels of the judiciary in Scotland, judges are invited to request 'guidance from the Holy Spirit' for all who seek justice.

In a letter to the Scottish government, the NSS warn that the ceremonies also provide the religious hierarchies involved with an opportunity to assert the influence and primacy of Christian ethics and dogma in the judicial process.

The ceremonies are specifically timed as markers for the start of the legal year so as to be synonymous with it, and the NSS have warned that judges' attendance at these ceremonies may undermine the principles set out in the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics for the Scottish Judiciary (PDF).

The Principles contain express provisions forbidding judges to engage in political meetings, affiliations or activity which the NSS says raises questions over participation in Red Mass and Kirking ceremonies hosted by religious organisations with overt political agendas.

Both the Scottish Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland have actively campaigned against the Scottish Government's plans to legislate for same-sex marriage.

Alistair McBay, the National Secular Society's spokesperson for Scotland, described the ceremonies as "barely coded attempts by rival Christian denominations to lay claim to the legal profession."

Mr McBay said: "Members of the judiciary who attend the Ceremonies could cause the public to associate them with, or create the perception of partiality towards, either denomination and their very public and partisan political campaigns.

"There are many people in Scotland with no adherence to any religious belief, and who reject the notion that guidance as to judicial procedure and decisions should be the subject of appeal to, or intervention by, supernatural agency. The judicial system should be neutral with regard to matters of religious belief, neither favouring one faith over another or none at all, nor being perceived to be so doing.

"We have stressed in the strongest possible terms in our complaint that Judges can of course be religious and attend any services they wish in a personal capacity, but we believe the judges who voluntarily take part in these 'traditions' are acting contrary to their obligation to remain independent and impartial, and be seen to be so".

In the letter to the Kenny MacAskill, the NSS also expressed surprise that — given the concerted attempts to tackle sectarianism — that neither the Lord President of the Scottish Judiciary nor the Scottish Government appear to see any problem in these two rival Christian denominations, on which the curse of sectarianism is founded, laying claim in their respective Ceremonies to the execution of Scottish justice in accordance with their conflicting theological perspectives.

Mr McBay added: "If the principles contained in the Statement are to be upheld both to the letter and in spirit, then the perception of the judiciary's impartiality and independence has to be maintained. We believe that attendance by the Judiciary at the Ceremonies undermines the integrity of the Statement, and weakens public trust in what should be a scrupulously neutral public institution."

(Picture: Cardinal Keith O'Brien presents Scotland's top judge, Lord Gill, with a papal medal at the 2012 Red Mass ceremony, at which the Cardinal urged Catholic lawyers to 'remain strong and true to their religious beliefs')

Are religions unfair to women? Is the Pope Catholic?

Opinion | Thu, 9th May 2013

Kate Smurthwaite rocks. Now I've got that out of the way, I will describe in slightly more detail other matters that became apparent while I was watching The Big Questions on BBC1 on Sunday. There was only one question on this episode: Are religions unfair to women?

At the start of the programme, I turned to my other half and said; ok, you're about to be served up a smorgasbord of "out of context", "that's not religion, it's culture", "it's not unfair, it's just different" (or "complementary" if you prefer), "we oppress women out of respect for them", "it's not religion that oppresses women, it's men" and let's not forget the misinterpretations and the misunderstandings and complexities and nuances of the language of scripture which we dunderheads are unable to demystify due to our crass and immensely unhelpful adherence to reason. You've got to side-step reason and … what's the word… oh yes "transcend" reason in order to truly understand the complexities of a command as subtle as "beat her".

(How to side-step the "beat her" command in the Quran – like this: "Yes, we realise that is what the scripture says, but what on earth makes you think that when it says 'beat her', it means 'beat her'? Clearly, what the creator of the universe was trying to say (he can be clumsy with words but we love him anyway) is 'hit her lightly – and respectfully – with a feather, but only if she's completely lost all sense of reason (because you know what women are like) and is a danger to herself, or she's about to throw the kids out the window. Only then do you lightly physically restrain her (respectfully) and even then only after you've told her off several times and refused to have sex with her (a terrible punishment no doubt)'. Whilst we realise none of this is actually written in the scripture, and we've therefore invented it, we do have women to placate and we can't have them knowing that scripture endorses violence against them, so this calls for some serious flim-flammery. Et voila".)

Anyway, back to the programme. Kate Smurthwaite was heroic, as was Prof Francesca Stavrakopoulou of Exeter University. When they were allowed to speak, they fought the corner well. But, as so often, I found myself frustrated at what wasn't being said in reply to the standard assembly-line arguments I've described above, so I'm afraid I'll have to vent my frustrations here. I'll start with the greatest weapon in the clerical armoury – "out of context".

The first rule with "out of context" is that it only applies to nasty things. So, if a scripture says something enlightening and loving, well then that is perfectly clear – God is enlightened and loving (and this book here is the word of God). On the other hand, if it is violent, cruel, vicious, unjust, barbaric, or just plain genocidal – then it is "out of context". This is rule number one and it is not up for negotiation.

Rule number two is this: sometimes the scripture is interpreted as relevant to the time in which it was written. At other times, it is a rigid demand for all times and all places. How do you tell the difference? Well, it depends entirely on the priest/rabbi/imam/vicar you happen to be talking to at the time. That's the beauty of this rule – it is uber-flexible (and uber-convenient).

"It's not religion, it's culture". This one is convincing and wins over many. That is of course the many who haven't actually given it any thought. This argument assumes a few things, the most important being that religion and culture are somehow separate and have no influence on each other.

Nonsense.

Have a look at Saudi Arabia. Women are not allowed to drive, or be seen, or have any autonomy or power whatsoever. If, and when, this is challenged – the response is not "that's against our culture", the response is "that's un-Islamic" and when anything is un-Islamic, that's the end of it. When politicians in Yemen argued to end the practice of child marriage there, the argument was cut short for being un-Islamic. Culture didn't come in to it.

In Iran, people are stoned to death not because it's got anything to do with culture (Iranians – and Afghans for that matter – had a very different culture prior to the arrival of political Islam), but because it is Islamic. The Taliban don't talk about culture when they behead, mutilate and maim. That's Islamic too, and that's what they call it. It is barbarism, cruelty and misogyny carried out in the name of Islam, justified by Islam, defended by Islam and found in Islamic scripture and law, but apparently it's got nothing at all to do with Islam. Spectacular.

"It's not unfair, it's just different". This one is wheeled out routinely as well (you could set your watch by it) and it is also complete and utter tripe. Let me tell you something: when "different" means that one of you has all the power and the other one has none, when one of you is master and the other one a servant, when one of you has all the money and the authority while the other has zero – that is different yes, but is also immensely unfair. It is different in the way that a slave and a slave-owner are different. It is different in the way that the Afrikaaners and black Africans were different under apartheid. It is different in the way that just and unjust are different, sane and insane are different, cruelty and compassion are different. This is annoying me now, so I'm going to move on to the next one.

"We oppress women out of respect for them". This is a good one, and is swallowed hook, line and sinker (by those who give it no thought).

This one could also be described as "we keep women dependent and enslaved at home with no opportunity to experience life because they are precious jewels which must be protected – this is how much we honour them. That is of course until they step out of line in any way, then we kill them. Out of respect."

Similar rubbish was put forward by an Orthodox Rabbi on the programme when he was asked why he didn't shake the hand of a female researcher that morning. After delivering this hum-dinger "I don't touch those things that don't belong to me" (enough said), he went on to describe how he won't touch women out of respect for them. But of course, "ewgh, I'm not touching you" has always been a well-known mark of respect – hasn't it? He also delivered some upper-class drivel when he said "unclean doesn't mean dirty"; thus proving beyond doubt that there's absolutely no amount of crap that they won't try to get away with.

This argument also adheres to the virgin/whore dichotomy. Women are one or the other – they're either a virgin or a whore. The Virgin Mary is the perfect woman – and so often wheeled out as an example of how highly women are valued in Catholicism – but it's exactly the same as "we honour you until you step out of line". Mary is loved because she is a virgin who does what she's told. This is not love or respect. This is "do as we say or you're dead", which is somewhat different.

"It's not religion that oppresses women, it's men". This one is particularly convincing and it's the only one I am going to give the benefit of the doubt on. I do believe that those putting forward this argument are on the whole well-intentioned, but I'm afraid it still isn't good enough. It completely side-steps the fact that yes, it is men who are oppressing women but if not for religion, they would not be able to do it.

Let's go back to Saudi Arabia. When women there complain of their treatment, the men can throw up their hands and say "don't blame us, God said". And the argument ends there. It is so much harder to fight against the rulings of the creator of the universe than it is to argue against a mere man. So the woman must shut up and accept it. Religion gives unquestionable authority to men who wish to oppress women and allows them to do so – the religion is the weapon, it is not an innocent bystander. If these things about women were not written in the scripture, and the scripture deemed the word of God, then men would not be able use it to beat women in to the ground.

This is the reality, and no amount of verbal diarrhoea is going to change it.

Speaking of reality, I must include the quote of the day, delivered by the fantastic Kate Smurthwaite – I can't possibly put it any better than this:

"If we look at the real world, there are thousands of women – millions of women, all around the world who, as a result of religion, are being denied the right to vote, being denied the right to drive, being denied the right to leave the house and get the job that they want. Young girls are having their clitorises removed, unsafely, in unsanitary conditions. Women being killed, women having their lives ruined, and we're sat here bickering about what verses mean. Just look at the real world – religion is incredibly damaging to women".

In short, religion is oppression perfected; a weapon of the powerful to beat the powerless in to submission. Religion must assert its authority and it does so in the way that male-dominated societies always have – by beating up women. When you strip away all the useless and abstruse theology that is what is left. It's not complex, it is simple. A group of petty and insecure men reassure themselves of their power by trampling all over women – and they do so with the connivance of a special class of women who sell out their sisters for a few scraps of male-defined power.

Personally, I don't have a problem with belief in a God, or a belief in things beyond the human mind. If I rejected those who believe in God, I would be missing some of the most important people in my life. The problem is religion. The problem is scripture. The problem is clergy. The problem is the power that the unknown holds over us and the exploitation of the fear this creates by a professional class who exploit it for political power and wealth.

The solution is secularism, and only secularism.

Secularism does not control belief; it keeps religious oppressors away from power and, most importantly, keeps women safe and free from these oppressors.

Icelandic humanist group first to get legal recognition as a “secular life stance organisation”

News | Wed, 8th May 2013

On Friday 3 May 2013, the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association, Sidmennt, was registered as the first "secular life stance organization" in Iceland. This move comes in accordance with a law, passed by the Icelandic Parliament earlier this year, which regulates registered religions and life stance organisations.

The President of Sidmennt, Hope Knutsson, has expressed deep gratitude for Sidmennt's new status, stating that by making an ethical and Humanist association fully equal in terms of institutional recognition, Iceland is again at the forefront of human rights victories worldwide. She said: "Our Humanist life stance is now officially recognized by the government. This turning point demonstrates that in Iceland there are progressive people who respect human rights. Icelandic recognition of GLBT rights in recent decades is an excellent example and now people with a secular Humanist philosophy of life are gaining respect and acceptance".

Sidmennt has been organising secular confirmation ceremonies for 25 years, and secular and Humanist baby-namings, weddings, and funerals for 5 years. As a listed organisation in the national registry, Sidmennt's marriage ceremonies will now have legal status, meaning that couples will no longer have to go to government authorities to have a non-religious wedding.

Sidmennt will also now benefit from the so-called 'church tax' for people who join through that institution. Knutsson noted the benefits of this for Sidmennt's prospects of growth: "Almost all of the work within Sidmennt […] has been done on a volunteer basis which has limited its growth. We look forward now to being able to develop our services and programs more fully and to continue to work for separation of church and state and towards a truly secular society where diversity and respect for all life stances and human rights are celebrated".

Fighting back in Strasbourg

Opinion | Fri, 3rd May 2013

Twice recently the generally progressive Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has been ambushed by a minority faction of reactionary religious deputies who have forced through amendments to resolutions completely contrary to their main sense. A resolution on the need to safeguard access to reproductive health services in the face of widespread exercise of conscientious objection was subverted by the insertion of an unqualified right to conscientious objection for everyone and every institution. Later, a resolution about living wills was prefixed by a clause denouncing assisted dying and euthanasia in all circumstances.

PACE met again last week, and anyone reading the reports on Christian websites on Thursday (April 25) could be forgiven for thinking we had suffered another defeat. "Council of Europe tells Member States to respect conscience and accommodate religious beliefs in the public sphere" said one; "Council of Europe Hailed for Religious Freedom Resolution" said another.

But in fact the reactionary religious right had just suffered a serious setback, barely disguised in the more honest reports: it was "an important — although limited — recognition of religious and conscience rights".

The PACE Political Affairs and Democracy Committee had commissioned a report from Luca Volontè, an Italian MP and friend of the Vatican, on violence against Christian communities outside Europe. Volontè, who has happily lost his seat in the Italian parliament, making this his PACE swansong, instead produced a report that focussed much of its attention on Europe and extended 'violence' to include 'psychological violence' so as to bring in all the old myths of persecution of Christians.

With his report came a draft resolution that would have been a major setback if adopted. Cleverly drafted, it endorsed the right to religious freedom, backed conscientious objection in 'morally sensitive matters', underlined the 'liberty of parents' to decide the religious education of their children and so on – matters which taken in isolation were recognisable parts of the general apparatus of human rights. But the resolution entirely ignored the rights of non-religious people and it omitted all the limitations on the manifestation of religion that have always been part of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the ten days before the resolution was debated a small group of representatives of INGOs concerned with the rights of non-religious people (myself for IHEU), women and gays and lesbians worked in close collaboration to draft the necessary amendments. These extended references to 'religious communities' to 'communities and individuals defined by religion or beliefs', added provisos to safeguard the rights of others to be free from discrimination and to guarantee access to lawful services, and added promotion of objective education about non-religious beliefs to education about religion. Elsewhere, a new clause was proposed on the problematic status of women and girls in 'many traditional religious settings' with mention of 'honour killings, bride burning, forced marriages, female genital mutilation'. A key new clause called for respect for religious beliefs and traditions 'while guaranteeing that a due balance is struck with the rights of others'.

Then we lobbied members of PACE to introduce these amendments — the ones extending religion to 'religion or belief' were taken up for us by the UK MP Michael Connarty — and we lobbied the party groups in the Assembly, pointing to the dangers hidden in the resolution as drafted.

The result was that the three centre/left party groups — the Unified European Left, the Socialists and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe — all spoke and voted officially for the amendments. (Reports on religious websites suggested that the attack came from 'Scandinavians', presumably because the group spokesmen happened to come from Sweden and Denmark!) Not only that, but the great majority of the individual deputies from the other groups also supported the amendments.

From the religious right's point of view, the resolution, adopted by a huge majority, was a poor substitute for the coup they had intended. It is not perfect for us either, but it has enabled us to identify some more friends in the Assembly and to give Luca Volontè a fitting send-off.

But Volontè was merely the agent for the reactionary religious organisations that are our real opponents, notably the European Centre for Law and Justice, whose Gregor Puppinck was probably influential in drafting the original report and who has taken the lead in putting out misleading interpretations of what happened in Strasbourg last week. We need to remain vigilant…

David Pollock is Head of Delegation to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg for the International Ethical and Humanist Union (IHEU) – a worldwide group to which the NSS is affiliated.