Newsline 11 August 2017

Newsline 11 August 2017

This week we learnt that Newcastle had joined a growing list of British cities blighted by widespread sexual abuse, committed by gangs of mainly Muslim men. Too often when crimes like these happen, our policy makers mouth platitudes and take the easy way out: they turn to faith groups or 'community leaders' for a solution.

The fear of bigots exploiting the news to push an anti-Muslim agenda is understandable. But we should not accept the bigotry of low expectations, or invest effort and resources in people who have minimal expertise in child protection and represent nobody but themselves. These responses simply worsen the divide and suspicions between different social groups.

As Yasmin Rehman writes in our blog, this thorny issue requires a clear-headed, secular response. There is no need for faith to play a part in tackling sex abuse. The point is to protect our children and our free, tolerant society – not to indulge or demonise groups of people, and not to make ourselves feel good.

We have also been reminded of religion's unearned power in Northern Ireland and the USA. Many British people took new interest in the DUP in June, when it made a deal with the Conservatives. But in Northern Ireland their policies continue to restrict the choices of many women and LGBT+ people. Similarly, in the US, the religious right continues to promote the freedom of believers over those of non-believers.

This week we also have coverage of Malaysia's clampdown on ex-Muslims; three setbacks for the lobbyists trying to play the victim to undermine counter-radicalisation measures; and a tongue-in-cheek blog from a parent in Australia, who uses food to critique a school's policy on collective worship.

Please support the NSS today and join thousands of other people like you in standing up for a secular Britain.

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

News, Blogs & Opinion

Newcastle: what's faith got to do with it?

Opinion | Thu, 10th Aug 2017

A group of mainly Muslim men has been convicted for sexual abuse in another British city. Amid a predictable response, Yasmin Rehman says child protection does not require the involvement of faith groups or 'community leaders'.

Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Aylesbury, Barking, Peterborough, Telford and now Newcastle. Like many, I listened to the roll call of British cities where yet again, Asian, largely Muslim men have been convicted for the rape, exploitation and abuse of young women and girls.

I listened knowing that more reports of the same abuses taking place in towns and cities across the country are yet to be reported, that thousands of girls have been abused and that men from my community background have been perpetrating these crimes for decades with impunity.

The media and airwaves have been dominated by discussions about the paying of a convicted child sex offender to spy on the grooming gangs in Newcastle. Sarah Champion MP, in a number of media interviews, has demanded the need to acknowledge that the majority of perpetrators, in all of the above cases, are from a Pakistani background and has called for something to be done about this. But what is to be done?

The response of shock and horror at the abuse follows a well-worn path. Calls for more to be done to support survivors of child sexual exploitation, serious case reviews to learn lessons, concerns about the far-right exploiting the situation and feeding anti-Muslim hatred, calls for the Asian community to do more, more debates about integration and cohesion of Asians/Muslims in British society and political correctness. Then there is the letter signed by faith and community leaders to condemn the abuse which also follows news of such cases.

And as always there is the oft-heard statement that these cases have nothing to do with religion - and, at the same time, statements that religion is a key tool in tackling such abuses. Councillor Dipu Apad, a prominent Tyneside Muslim, has stated that the abuse goes against everything Islam stands for; and yet in an interview with Channel 4 News, he called for faith groups to be included in addressing such crimes.

I am never quite sure what role faith has in these debates unless of course faith is being used to justify the abuse of young girls. But even then, irrespective of religion or culture all of us know, including these men, that drugging, plying young girls with alcohol and drugs and sexually assaulting them is simply wrong. 'Do not rape and abuse' is not hard to understand, is it?

It is interesting that in Britain every time there is a case involving Asian/Muslim men there are calls for greater engagement with faith communities and community leaders. This is in stark contrast to what I have been told is happening in Pakistan, where discussions about child sexual abuse are now beginning to take place.

In 2000, Javed Iqbal was sentenced to death for the murder and abuse of more than 100 children. At that time, much of the debate focused on the sentence issued by the judge in the case and not on the abuse. However, the taboo surrounding child sexual abuse was highlighted in a ground breaking drama series Udaari (To Fly), broadcast in 2016, and has finally created a space for public debate about these issues. The drama series was produced by Hum TV in partnership with the Kashf Foundation, an NGO working on gender empowerment and talking poverty in Pakistan.

I was struck by the bravery of all those involved in making Udaari for taking on such a taboo and controversial subject in Pakistan. I know of many courageous activists and NGOs, such as Sahil, working in Pakistan to tackle child sexual abuse and child trafficking. In addition to the courage to work on such abuses in Pakistan, what really struck me about Udaari and these NGOs is that at no point do they suggest or recommend working with faith communities, religious leaders or using faith based education to tackle these crimes.

In contrast, Kashf Foundation, Sahil and others in Pakistan call for politicians and lawmakers to make child protection a priority. They want to raise awareness of child sexual abuse and remove the stigma attached to victims and survivors. They would like to see better funded support for organisations supporting survivors and their families. They want to see the abusers exposed and an end to the impunity under which they can continue to abuse and violate children. And finally, they want to see the police and criminal justice system hold perpetrators to account through the civil laws of the land.

At no point is religion part of this call. This was clearly shown in the television drama and the calls repeated several times by the various characters in the story.

I think there is much that can be learned from the work in Pakistan in addressing the grooming gangs here in Britain. The survivors deserve a response that will deliver justice through conviction of the perpetrators and ongoing support to move forward from their experiences. This will not and cannot be delivered by a religiously sanctioned rejection of child sexual exploitation.

DUP vows to resist calls to legalise abortion and same-sex marriage

News | Fri, 11th Aug 2017

DUP leader Arlene Foster has said her party will retain Northern Ireland's restrictions on abortion and same-sex marriage, despite growing pressure for reform.

This week Foster said her party believes that "marriage is between a man and a woman" and "it remains my position very firmly". She was speaking at an event organised by the Methodist Church in Ireland.

She also met Precious Life, which describes itself as "the largest pro-life group in Northern Ireland". Afterwards the organisation said she had assured them her party will do "everything in its power" to maintain Northern Ireland's limits on abortion.

Abortion has been illegal in Northern Ireland since the Victorian era. It has been decriminalised in the rest of the UK since the 1960s.

"Ms Foster was unequivocal in her pro-life conviction and assured us that the DUP will use their power to keep abortion, and the 1967 Abortion Act, out of pro-life Northern Ireland," a spokeswoman for Precious Life told The Times.

The group also said Foster had congratulated it on its youth campaign group, which has travelled around Northern Ireland this summer.

Her party is increasingly facing calls to allow women to have abortions. In June the UK government announced that Northern Irish women would be allowed access to NHS abortion services in England. Around a thousand women make the trip each year.

The number of legal abortions in the province was recently measured at just 15. In 2015 the Belfast High Court ruled that the law was in breach of international human rights standards as it did not permit terminations in cases of rape, incest or serious foetal abnormalities.

The DUP's position is a crucial factor in the passage of legislation. Last year an Ipsos-Mori poll found that 70% of the Northern Irish electorate was in favour of legalising same-sex marriage. And in 2015 the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly voted by a thin majority to legalise it. But the motion was blocked through the use of a "petition of concern", a measure introduced under the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. The petition was designed to protect the rights of minority groups.

Foster has made clear that religion is a crucial reason for her party's stance. Last year she said "the DUP is – and we make no apology for this – founded on very strong Christian values." She was responding to a question about the relevance of issues such as marriage and abortion to her party's identity.

And religious groups have resisted calls to liberalise the law. The Northern Ireland Evangelical Alliance is among those to oppose same-sex marriage. In 2015 a coalition of groups offered "strong support" to legislation which would have introduced a ten year prison sentence for carrying out an abortion.

That year the Catholic Council for Social Affairs was also recognised as an "interested party" in a case seeking to overturn a High Court ruling that Northern Ireland's restrictions on abortion in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality breeched Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The National Secular Society has consistently campaigned against Northern Ireland's restrictions on abortion and in favour of extending marriage to same-sex couples. In evidence submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council for their 2017 review of the UK, the NSS called Northern Ireland's restrictions on abortion out of touch with international human rights norms, and called on the Council to renew their 2012 recommendations on the topic. While healthcare is a devolved issue, the NSS argued, human rights are not.

In 2016 the Human Rights Council's review of the Republic of Ireland – in which 15 countries issued recommendations on Ireland's abortion laws – led to increased pressure on the country to repeal their constitutional amendment banning abortion. A referendum is expected in spring 2018.

A spokesperson for the NSS said: "This time next year, access to abortion and same-sex marriage will be available across the British Isles. Unfortunately Northern Ireland is likely to remain the exception.

"Arlene Foster's remarks are disappointing. The DUP continues to commit to restricting the choices of women and LGBT+ people, defying the changing views of many of the people she leads. This is further evidence that religious groups have excessive influence on public policy in Northern Ireland."

Picture credit: © Northern Ireland Office

Three setbacks for anti-counter extremism lobby

News | Thu, 10th Aug 2017

Lobbyists attempting to undermine and spread misinformation about Prevent – the government's counter-radicalisation safeguarding strategy - have suffered three setbacks in two weeks.

A court case, new figures from higher education providers and comments by a senior officer at Scotland Yard have all delivered bad news for Prevent's critics.

On 26 July a legal challenge to the strategy was defeated at the High Court. Salman Butt, the chief editor of the website Islam21c, lost a challenge against the campaign's guidance to higher education institutions.

Butt claimed the guidance infringed his freedom of speech and the handling of his personal data interfered with his right to a private life.

The High Court rejected his claim on all counts. Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that the guidance did not exceed the government's powers and that Butt had no reasonable expectation of privacy as the data he referred to had been published in the context of public debate.

He said "understanding why people are drawn into terrorist-related activity, and seeking to prevent them from being drawn into that activity, is a proper and necessary activity of the state."

The judge said he was "quite unable to accept" that Butt's claims were evidence of "some general chilling effect" on free speech. He said no higher education institution had provided evidence that Prevent had restricted free speech in practice, nor had anyone been unable to invite Butt to speak as a result.

He added that extremism "must in some respect risk drawing others into terrorism before the guidance applies to it".

Last week the Higher Education and Funding Council for England said that 95% of the 313 higher education providers were showing "due regard" to their duties under Prevent.

And this week one of the Metropolitan Police's most senior officers said criticism of Prevent was based on "ignorance". Commander Dean Haydon, the head of the force's counter-terrorism command, said some of the criticism of the strategy came from "sections of the community that just don't want it to work".

Usama Hasan, of the counter-extremist group Quilliam, wrote in the Guardian that Commander Haydon's analysis was "quite right".

"Hundreds of British men and women, mainly youths and some prisoners, have been mentored away from terrorism and towards more constructive avenues in life," Hasan wrote. He added that "many" had been stopped from travelling to join Islamic State abroad.

The government says Prevent is designed to respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism, stop people from being drawn into terrorism and support those at risk. It places particular focus on institutions such as schools, faith organisations and prisons, where the risk of radicalisation is considered greatest.

The strategy, which was created in 2003 and updated in 2011, has frequently come under attack from organisations who accuse it of stigmatising Muslims. This week the advocacy group CAGE called Prevent a "toxic" policy which "overwhelmingly targets Muslims".

Several unions, including the National Union of Students, the National Union of Teachers, the Educational Institute of Scotland and the University and College Union, have voiced their opposition to Prevent. Politicians including the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, have called for Prevent to be scrapped.

But Muslim reformers such as Sara Khan, of the group Inspire, argue that Islamist organisations shout down Muslims who support Prevent. "Through a combination of technology, ideologically driven activists, fervent anti-establishment sentiment and a lack of balanced media reporting, Prevent – and indeed many Muslim groups who support Prevent – have become victims of our post-truth society," Khan wrote last year.

And in December Dame Louise Casey, the author of a comprehensive government report on integration, said Prevent's opponents were often using exaggerated or inaccurate stories to "portray the programme at its worst". She added that elements of the anti-Prevent lobby "appear to have an agenda to turn British Muslims against Britain".

In response to the latest developments Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns director, said: "It is encouraging to see courts, universities and the police standing up to the powerful voices trying to undermine Prevent.

"There are legitimate criticisms of the government's strategy for countering radicalisation. Indeed the NSS is among those who have opposed government plans to ban 'non-violent extremism', on the grounds that the term has proved impossible to define and banning it is closes down free expression.

"But much of the anti-Prevent lobby is playing the victim in an attempt to undermine perfectly reasonable measures. In doing so it is inventing scare stories and using false accusations of bigotry. Politicians and civil society groups who support them in this should reflect on the harm their irresponsible behaviour has done to attempts to confront Islamist intolerance."

Involvement in Prevent has always been voluntary. But this week Simon Cole, the National Police Chiefs Council spokesman, said there had been discussions between senior officers and government officials about making it compulsory for "some categories of people". This could include those who have returned from fighting for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Malaysia targets ex-Muslims over viral atheist photo

News | Tue, 8th Aug 2017

Malaysia's government says it will re-educate ex-Muslims who took part in an atheist meeting after a photo of the event went viral.

A minister has also said that anyone found spreading atheist ideas could be prosecuted.

Last week the Kuala Lumpur consulate of Atheist Republic, a global support group for atheists, held its annual conference. The group posted a photo of the gathering on Facebook and said it "was such a blast".

The image spread quickly, including on several Islamist blogs and sites. Malaysia's deputy minister who oversees religious affairs said the government would investigate the group to find out if any "Muslims" were involved in the meeting.

"If it is proven that there are Muslims involved in atheist activities that could affect their faith, the state Islamic religious departments could take action," said Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki.

He said the government would take a "soft approach" to dealing with the issue. He said ex-Muslims who took part in the gathering would be given counselling. "Perhaps they are ignorant of the true Islam, so we need to engage them and educate them on the right teachings," he added.

Atheist Republic's founder, Armin Navabi, said the atheists were being "treated like criminals". "Who are they harming?!" he asked in a Facebook post.

Many social media users also called for the imprisonment or death of those involved in the meeting. "If they refuse to repent we burn them alive," wrote one. "An apostate's blood is halal for slaughter."

Another wrote: "The punishment for apostasy is death! What actions are our Mufti taking against this?"

Atheist activist and writer Ali Rizvi, who shared the threats, said: "This is the reality for those who leave Islam. We speak a lot here in the West about anti-Muslim bigotry, which is real and abhorrent. But it pales in comparison to Islamic bigotry, which gives license to its followers to murder those who dare to think for themselves, outside of Islam.

"Ex-Muslims, who still have Muslim names and share ethnicities and nationalities with other Muslims, are targeted by both."

Apostasy is not a federal crime in Malaysia, which has a Muslim majority but is multi-ethnic and multi-religious. But there is growing concern that Islamic fundamentalism is threatening religious freedoms. Malaysian states, which have their own laws governing Islamic affairs, do not allow Muslims to renounce Islam.

Former Muslims have been sent for counselling, fined and imprisoned. Many have been unable to register their new religious affiliations or legally marry non-Muslims.

The National Secular Society supports the rights of non-believers in Malaysia. Last month the NSS took part in the International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression, which organisers said was the largest gathering of ex-Muslims in history.

Sam Brownback: Trump’s new man is no fan of religious freedom

Opinion | Wed, 9th Aug 2017

The record of President Trump's new nominee exposes the hypocrisy of the US religious right. Chris Sloggett argues that its opponents must challenge the ingrained assumption that faith is a good thing.

"Religious freedom is the first freedom. The choice of what you do with your own soul. I am honoured to serve such an important cause."

This was how Sam Brownback responded to his nomination as the US's new ambassador at large for international religious freedom on Twitter last week. His advocates said he would be ideally suited to the role. Some pointed to his rare perfect score on the International Religious Freedom Congressional Scorecard. And his words were certainly reasonable.

But the following day he returned to Twitter – and gave away the catch.

"Kansas is my home," he wrote the day after his appointment. "Here, we are free to live in faith. Religion is where we live our inner life. All people ought to live that in freedom."

We are free to live "in faith". Religion is where we live our inner life. This was a 140-character summary of the hypocrisy of America's religious right on religious freedom. This group is very happy to remind us that people have the freedom to believe what they want. But they are predictably reluctant to accept that with freedom of belief comes freedom from belief.

Brownback's record in his current role as governor of Kansas reflects this. He granted a religious objection order which allowed taxpayer-funded services to discriminate in their provision. He rescinded an executive order which protected state employees from discrimination. These measures meant state employees could refuse to serve or hire gay people. And in March 2016, he signed a bill which required public colleges and universities to recognise and fund religious student associations.

He has also proved intensely hostile to gay marriage. Even after the US supreme court made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 US states in 2015, he opposed it so strongly that a federal judge put his state on probation and monitored its implementation of the ruling. So Brownback is no champion of "the choice of what you do with your own soul".

Freedom of religion defends people from encroachment into their personal affairs. It grants you freedom of speech: you can think and say what you like, short of inciting violence. It grants you the right to associate with others who share your religious outlook freely and privately.

But your freedoms end when other people's freedoms begin. Religious liberty does not grant you the right to withhold state services from people who would otherwise get them. It does not give you a right to sack someone who has done nothing wrong. It does not give you the right to spend taxpayers' money promoting your views.

Brownback does not appear to appreciate that non-believers' interests are as important as those of believers. So if he is confirmed in his new role, we can expect him to fund dubious religious programmes, promote fringe groups who undermine secular ideals and turn a blind eye to discriminatory laws.

In theory, secularists in the UK should aspire to make their country more like America. But in reality secularism is not just about the formal separation of church and state. It is about resisting theocracy in all its forms; my personal view is that it should be part of a broader effort against the power of certainty, arrogance and fanaticism.

In the US, the religious lobby has not gained influence through state-funded faith schools or an established church. It has done so by claiming a special social and moral status. This is why Brownback's appointment was partly welcomed on the grounds that he "brings his personal faith to the table". It is why one of the tasks on his desk if he takes office will be to hold "programmes of outreach to American religious communities".

The special status of religious ideas mean non-belief is still a taboo in America. No open atheist has ever risen to the presidency. There are 535 lawmakers in Congress. More than nine out of ten of them are Christians. None of them have openly declared themselves as atheists. Just one describes herself as religiously "unaffiliated".

Even those who have little record of personal faith before entering politics have embraced it. When Mark Zuckerberg renounced his atheism, it was taken as a sign that he was lining up a presidential bid. Trump's personal religious convictions are dubious, but he has won votes by playing them up; just two weeks ago he tweeted: "In America we don't worship government, we worship God!"

American candidates do this because it plays well. Last year Pew found that 51% of Americans would be less likely to vote for a candidate who did not believe in God. Being an atheist was a bigger electoral liability than being Mormon, Muslim or gay; having a history of drug use, financial problems or extramarital affairs; or even having extensive experience in Washington, DC. But there was hardly a stir when Trump chose Mike Pence, who has advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools, as his vice-presidential nominee last year.

When such a double standard is ingrained, believers' freedoms will trump those of non-believers. Only yesterday a study showed that people around the world assume atheists are more likely to be serial killers than believers are. Reliable research does not appear to back up their preconceptions.

And this deferential attitude to faith is not confined to staunch believers. Perhaps this is why so many opponents of the religious right take great pleasure in comparing American evangelicals to American Muslims, as if one "beating" the other in a poll (when all other groups surveyed got a better score than either of them) is cause for celebration.

Perhaps also it helps to explain the embrace parts of the US left give to the likes of Linda Sarsour, who has defended sharia 'law' and the hijab and berated ex-Muslim freethinkers. Whether on the right or the left, believers enjoy an unearned, elevated position. But taking on the religious right does not mean shrugging our shoulders at other forms of theocracy, or indulging the bigotry of low expectations.

It requires defending people's right to practise their faith, while also defending others who choose to reject them and believe what they like. It requires declaring confidently that unchecked religious fervour has done great harm throughout history – and continues to do so, as world events show us on a depressingly regular basis. It requires a root-and-branch challenge to the narrative that religious belief is an inherent good.

Picture credit: © Gage Skidmore

Food for thought! Imposing worship in Australian schools

Opinion | Thu, 10th Aug 2017

Blinkers go on when the topic is religion. So one parent in a Queensland school thought she would use food to explain the impact of the school's version of 'inclusiveness', which involves telling them her child can go somewhere else while the prayer is being said. The picture is of the prayer recited at the regular assembly.

Mary is a new student at the school, having just started Prep. She has now been attending for about six months. She is enjoying the new experience and is a kind and capable student.

One week, one of her parents came to the school to meet her for the weekly ritual Friday lunch, which parents are encouraged to attend. Mary's parents had been unable to attend previously.

Each week the school runs a programme which includes a free snack for all the children. Each week it is the same snack. Each week the entire student body is invited by the student council, under the supervision of the teachers, to take part in the small meal. The meal is a hotdog. Now, Mary's family are vegetarians, and this was clearly indicated on her enrolment by her parents.

Each week Mary had been invited to eat meat with her peers, and being 5 and inexperienced, she had not realised that she was in fact eating meat. Mary's parents had thought that as they were the custodians of their child, and provided food for her each day, she was in no way at risk of ingesting non-vegetarian food, especially since they had notified the school of their views on food.

Mary loved the vegetarian hotdogs served in her home and was completely unaware that she was being fed something that was contrary to her parents' wishes. Needless to say when Mary's parents found out they felt upset, angry, and betrayed by the school. This was not something they had been consulted about, and when they questioned the principal and the education department, the response was, although policy says that all schools must be inclusive of all students, where a school has a tradition it is acceptable to maintain it at the expense of inclusivity. They said, 'Mary doesn't have to eat the hotdog; we can have her sit outside with a teacher while the other children eat their hotdogs.'

When asked why a snack that would be suitable for all children, so none had to miss out, could not be substituted, Mary's parents were told that it has been the same snack every week for 30 years, and this is the first complaint they'd had, and that if the majority voted to keep the hotdogs there would be no changes to the ritual.

They were told that Mary could opt out, and it wasn't mandatory, that Mary could sit to the side and not join in. Don't forget: Mary is just five and it's her very first year at school.

The odd things is, while looking into this matter, Mary's parents found out that around 70% of parents had also said their child was vegetarian, and the school had been feeding their children something that was not in line with those families' views.

Neither the principal nor the education department were prepared to set a standard of inclusiveness; instead, they agreed the way to be inclusive was to exclude Mary.

It would be so very simple to remove the first and last lines of the prayer the children recite and call it the School Creed, which would be inclusive of all parents, teachers and children. From 2016 enrolment data, only 27% of children at this school have been identified as Christian. Even if the majority were Christian, we would expect state schools to be a model for inclusiveness rather than mob rules.

This article and picture were originally published by Queensland Parents for Secular State Schools and are reproduced here with their permission. QPSSS is a movement of parents who believe Queensland state schools should be inclusive of all pupils regardless of their religious or belief background. They challenge segregated and biased religious instruction and advocate for professional school counsellors to replace state funded religious chaplains.