Newsline 12 December 2014

Not a member? The most tangible way of supporting our work is by becoming a member and contributing funds to enable us to campaign effectively; the more we have, the more we can do. If you believe, as we do, that a secular Britain is our best chance to achieve true equality for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, then please join us and become part of what is possibly the most important debate of the 21st century. Together we can create a fairer and more equal society.

News, Blogs & Opinion

	NSS warns against bill allowing religious exemptions to Northern Ireland’s equality laws News \| Wed, 10th Dec 2014 Democratic Unionist Party backbencher Paul Givan MLA (pictured above) has proposed a Private Members Bill that would create a religious exemption in Northern Ireland's equality legislation. The exemption would allow businesses to refuse services to customers on the grounds of "strongly held religious convictions". First Minister Peter Robinson has backed the Bill, saying "tolerance must include provisions to ensure that those with deeply held religious views are protected." But the National Secular Society has warned the Bill could "legitimise victimisation of already persecuted minorities". The Bill was prompted by the case of Ashers Baking Company, who refused to bake a cake with a message endorsing same-sex marriage. The Equality Commission subsequently pursued a civil case against the bakery. A petition launched by three DUP MPs accused the Commission of being "anti-democratic," discriminatory, and of abusing public funds in pursuing the company. As a result of the Ashers Bakery case, Givan has now published a consultation paper on a "Northern Ireland Freedom of Conscience Bill." In the consultation, Givan writes that "some equality legislation, passed with the intention of protecting minorities, is having an adverse effect on those with religious belief." The 'Conscience Bill' would allow religious business owners to decline to serve customers, if the service would "promote or facilitate" a same-sex union. Givan explains: "If a religious goods and services provider was required by the legislation to provide a service in a way that endorsed or promoted a same-sex union, or in some sense facilitated a same-sex sexual relationship, the provider would be made complicit in affirming same-sex sexual relationships. They would thus have to choose between acting in violation of their protected characteristic identity, surrendering their faith identity or ceasing service provision." Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, warned that the Bill could legitimise victimisation of already persecuted minorities. He said: "I hope it will be strenuously rejected by all those who recognise the contribution that equality laws and Human Rights have made to our becoming a more compassionate and just society." The Rainbow Project, which campaigns for the "health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender people," has said that the Bill would actually be a "license to discriminate" against homosexuals. The director of the Rainbow Project, John O'Doherty, added that "this proposed legislation will only be used to discriminate against LGB people" and that it "is not motivated by a desire to protect those of religious belief but by a hostility to LGB people and their hard-won rights." O'Doherty said that the proposed Bill "is just updating 'No dogs, no blacks, no Irish' to include 'no gays'." Givan claims that the 'Conscience Bill' would not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation alone. He writes that the Bill would "not mean that an Evangelical grocer would be able to refuse to sell apples to a gay man. The selling of apples would not involve the Evangelical grocer being required to endorse, promote or facilitate a same-sex sexual relationship in violation of his/her faith identity so there is no conflict." However, Givan notes, the Bill would "mean that an Evangelical photographer would not be required by law to choose between either taking photos of a civil partnership ceremony, and hereby act in violation of their faith identity by endorsing, promoting and celebrating same-sex unions – or lose their livelihood." The Rainbow Project argues that the amendment would mean business could legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. O'Doherty said that the religious exemption would mean that "restaurants could deny a same-sex couple a table as this could be facilitating same-sex relations. A mortgage provider could deny a mortgage to a same-sex couple as it would be facilitating same-sex relations. Hoteliers could deny a room to a same-sex couple as it would be facilitating same-sex relations." "The proposed legislation would grant special rights for people of religious belief, and only those people, to deny access to goods, facilities and services on the grounds of sexual orientation." An LGBT Labour Northern Ireland spokesman said that "the LGBT community are part of Northern Ireland" and that "Northern Ireland needs an Equality Act." The UK Equality Act 2010 does not apply to Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein said it was "opposed to any dilution of equality legislation." The consultation on the proposed amendment can be found and completed here.
	New report on UK sharia ‘marriages’ exposes “tip of the iceberg” News \| Wed, 10th Dec 2014 A report by a human rights group has exposed the vulnerability of Muslim women living in Islamic 'marriages' in the UK. The report finds that the widespread practice of polygamy has left Muslim women without legal rights upon 'divorce', entirely dependent on their 'husbands' for financial support, and often unable to leave sham 'marriages' for fear of social ostracism or bringing "shame" to their family. According to the report, written by AURAT, a charity which supports victims of honour-based violence, many Muslim women are unsure of their legal rights and some women were even left believing that 'marriage' ceremonies were valid simply because they had taken place in the UK. The report was welcomed by the National Secular Society, which has expressed concern that the rise of sharia is creating a "parallel legal system" within Britain's Muslim community. Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns manager, said: "Islamic 'marriages' and sharia courts are quasi-legal systems operating within Muslim communities, and, as the report shows, both discriminate against women, who sometimes have little knowledge of their legal rights and are unable to access support services and are therefore all-too-often becoming trapped in insular religious communities." The report cites examples from women who told their stories to AURAT, including many women who were married, by their parents, to men who later turned out to have as many as three 'wives' living in different households. One woman told how she was left claiming benefits simply to pay the mortgage on her 'husband's' house when he refused to support her. He had three other wives living in different houses. In her foreword to the report, Baroness Cox writes that the shocking situation described in the research is "just the tip of the iceberg". Cox says that "there are, literally, countless more women in similar predicaments" as the women who volunteered their testimony. Cox draws attention to the role of "sharia law principles" in exacerbating the situation, worsening the "plight of women in Islamic communities." Although women from many backgrounds may suffer abuse or "other problems associated with dysfunctional families", Cox writes, sharia law makes these situations much worse for women. Cox says that discrimination against women and girls is "inherent" in sharia law. The report notes that "in mainstream Islam, a husband does not have to undertake the same process as the wife when seeking a Talaq (an Islamic 'divorce'). He merely has to say 'I divorce you' three times, whereas a wife must meet various conditions and pay a fee." The report found that women married under Nikah (Islamic 'marriage' ceremonies) "can suffer significant disadvantages because they lack legal protection". One woman, named as Rafa in the report, "realised she had no rights to the family home" after her husband walked out on her. Rafa's husband had "made sure the property was in his sole name" and this left her with "no recourse to recompense from the property because their marriage was not legally recognised" in the UK. Of the fifty women interviewed for the qualitative research, 46 identified themselves as being married. Only ten percent of those marriages were legally recognised by English law. Though the sample size was small given the "limited resources" available, Baroness Cox writes that she believes there is "much truth" to the report and calls for a "systematic investigation" into the problem. Over half of the women interviewed were unaware that they had fewer legal rights in their unrecognised religious 'marriages'. Two thirds of the women had been married in the family home, and "assumed that, because the ceremony had taken place in the UK, it automatically counted as a valid marriage." Two thirds of the 'married' women said that their 'husband' had more than one wife. 22 of the women reported that their 'husband' lives "with his other wife/wives part or full-time." According to the report, "nearly all" of the women whose 'husband' had additional wives were not supported financially by their husbands. Three quarters of this groups relied on state benefits to survive. One of the major underlying problems the research found was that the broader Muslim community would not support women who 'divorced' their 'husbands'. There were also significant financial costs for women who wished to have an Islamic 'divorce'. The research found that almost half of the married women said "the Muslim community would not support them if they sought a Talaq." The report noted that "there is a growing concern that many Muslim women in Britain today are suffering severe gender discrimination but lack knowledge of their rights under British law. Moreover, seeking help from non-Muslim professional and legal sources may be strongly discouraged as it may be deemed to incur 'shame' on Muslim families and communities". The research concluded that "vulnerable women are often inhibited from getting the help they really need." AURAT is now calling for Mosques and Muslim community leaders to inform families about the diminished rights women have under religious marriages that remain unrecognised by the state. It also urged professional and public bodies to be made more visible to Muslim women who may not be aware of the support services available. In June 2014 Justice Minister Simon Hughes told the House of Commons that "The Government is committed to the protection and promotion of the rights of women, families and children. This includes raising awareness of the legal consequences of 'religious only' marriages and encouraging mosques to register in order to be able to carry out legally recognised marriages in their various facilities." Read the report: Equal and Free? 50 Muslim Women's Experiences of Marriage in Britain Today
	IHEU report reveals extent of global discrimination against non-believers News \| Thu, 11th Dec 2014 The International Humanist and Ethical Union has released its second annual report on the global state of human rights for non-believers, atheists and agnostics. The report found a "trend towards targeting 'atheists'" across the world, and concluded that "the overwhelming majority of countries fail to respect the rights of atheists and freethinkers." The report draws attention to "hate campaigns against the non-religious" in 13 Muslim-majority countries, and examples of legislation and hate speech designed to curtail the rights of non-believers. These include a law in Saudi Arabia which equates atheism with terrorism and which prohibits "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion." The report also singles out Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who branded secularism, humanism and liberalism as "deviant" and who dismissed human rights as a danger to Islam. The Egyptian Ministry of Youth is also cited in the report, for their campaign to warn Egyptians about "the dangers of atheism". Although the IHEU 'Freedom of Thought' study paints a grim picture of human rights across the globe, the authors do make a case for some positive trends. They write that, "if 2014 has seen something of a surge in hate directed at atheists, it is at least a backlash against a steadily globalising conception of non-religious identities." "The non-religious are also recognising themselves more, stumbling upon new terms and new arguments through international media and the internet, coming together online, talking, in some countries meeting in secret. The non-religious are raising their heads above the parapet. There is a backlash, but it's a backlash that is a response to a surge of new ideas and new connections, and we can hold onto that." The report gave every country in the world a "Freedom of Thought" status, with rankings ranging from "free and equal" to "grave violations." Countries ranked as "free and equal" include Sierra Leone, Taiwan, Province of China, Estonia, Kosovo, Belgium, The Netherlands and Fiji. Nations with "grave violations" against the human rights of the non-religious include Somalia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, China, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq. The report notes that "19 countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 12 of those countries it is punishable by death. Pakistan doesn't have a death sentence for apostasy but it does for blasphemy, and the threshold for 'blasphemy' can very low; so in effect you can be put to death for expressing atheism in 13 countries." The United Kingdom is rated as having "system discrimination." The IHEU report finds that "religion has little unwanted influence over most people in daily life, and the number identifying as non-religious in the most recent census has increased dramatically; however some education reforms in the past few years including in 2014 have increased the influence of religion in schools and removed secular options from some courses." The report cites a number of "systemic issues" in the UK, including "systematic religious privilege" like the control of "some public or social services" by religious groups and the existence of an established church. The research also notes that "religious schools have powers to discriminate in admissions or employment."
	Law Society did not consult before issuing Sharia guidance News \| Mon, 8th Dec 2014 A Freedom of Information request from an unnamed complainant has revealed that the Law Society did not consult any religious groups or individuals before issuing its now-withdrawn Sharia guidance. On 9 September a Freedom of Information request was made to the Law Society, asking about the Sharia Succession Rules note which the society had published earlier in the year. The applicant asked whether "any religious organisations or lobbyists had been consulted before the decision to publish" the guidance and additionally if "feminist/women organisations and lobbyists had been consulted." The applicant also asked who had authored the note. Though the Law Society would not name the authors, it did disclose that "no 'Sharia Law experts' had been consulted and that no external individuals or organisations had lobbied the Society or been involved in drafting the Note." The Law Society has since said that it recognises "it was not appropriate to issue guidance based on only one of many interpretations of Sharia principles." The guidance had stated that under Sharia Law "illegitimate" heirs were not eligible to inherit and that "the male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised." The guidance was recently withdrawn, some nine months after it was published and after a long campaign from a diverse range of bodies. The National Secular Society has also learned that all training courses in sharia have now been "delisted" from the Law Society's website.
	House of Lords debates FGM and Sharia Law in the UK News \| Fri, 12th Dec 2014 On Thursday 11 December, there were debates in the House of Lords on female genital mutilation (FGM) and the "impact of Sharia Law on the United Kingdom." In the first debate. on FGM, raised by Baroness Rendell of Babergh, peers asked about Government progress in encouraging prosecutions under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. Baroness Tonge, an honorary associate of the NSS, spoke of how FGM "causes untold physical damage to a woman" and equated the practice to a family member sexually abusing a young girl. Lady Tonge called for parents to be prosecuted if their child is the victim of FGM. Lord Faulks, Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy, noted that "it is a source of frustration to all noble Lords that while FGM has been a specific criminal offence for 29 years—the original Act—no prosecutions were brought." Addressing an ongoing FGM court case, Lord Faulks added that "It is probably not appropriate to comment on what one hopes the outcome of the case would be, but, whatever happens, the publicity that will attend that prosecution should, I hope, send a strong message in itself." The Minister cited research part-funded by the Government which "revealed that approximately 60,000 girls are at risk of FGM in the UK." Lord Faulks told the House that: "The Government are committed to preventing and ending the harmful and unacceptable practice [of FGM]. I agree that successful prosecutions are a key part of stamping out FGM and would send out a strong message on the rule of law." In his closing remarks, Lord Faulks added that he was glad that "we have left the exaggerated respect for cultural norms and traditions" behind, and he told the House that "the Government are committed to doing everything we can" to stamp out FGM. In the following debate Baroness Flather, also an honorary associate of the NSS, asked for the Government's "assessment of the impact of Sharia law in the United Kingdom, particularly on women." Baroness Flather noted that there were now more than 80 Sharia councils in the UK, and argued that "they are not trained lawyers" and raised concerns that the councils do not keep proper records and make "ad hoc" judgements. Citing the retired Bishop of Rochester, Lady Flather argued that "Sharia is discriminatory against women, not only in relation to marriage and children, but in most aspects." Baroness Warsi began her comments by urging Lady Flather to "read back the speech that she just made." Lady Warsi questioned whether the peers were "debating a series of headlines which regularly appear in the Daily Mail." Lady Flather responded that "there is so much evidence which has been collected by various researchers and taken from women. These are their own stories and views; this is not about headlines." Lady Warsi continued, arguing that there was a difference between "Sharia and Sharia law" and that "Sharia exists in the United Kingdom in our multicultural society." Lady Warsi raised the example of Sharia-compliant financial bonds and student loans, as well as halal food and circumcision. Addressing the issue of Muslim women left without rights in unrecognised nikah Islamic 'marriages', Lady Warsi suggested that the Government might formally recognise Islamic religious 'marriages' so that men with multiple wives could be charged with bigamy. Baroness Cox then drew attention to the situation of women trapped in Islamic 'marriages', and discussed a new report on that subject (covered by the NSS earlier this week). The report detailed the concerns that Lady Flather raised, that women in Islamic 'marriages' are left without legal protection in the event of a 'divorce' and that many Muslim women are unaware of their legal rights. Lady Cox said: "several Muslim women have told me that men in their communities may each have up to 20 children," adding that this leads to children growing up in "dysfunctional families." Citing information from the report, Lady Cox said: "Two-thirds of those who are married are in polygamous marriages. Some say that they did not know that they were a second or third wife when they were married. Of these, almost all said that their husbands fail to provide them with financial support, in contravention of Islamic teaching. Many of these women are desperately unhappy." Lord Ahmad, concluding the debate, said "there is no parallel court system in this country" and that the Government "have no intention of changing this position in relation to any part of England and Wales." Lord Ahmad added that "the law of the land will prevail irrespective of what religious practice or community you may belong to." NSS Executive Director Keith Porteous Wood, who was present at the debates, said it was "shameful" that despite being outlawed, so much FGM was still being carried out in the UK and "going almost entirely unpunished." On the subject of unregistered marriages, he said it was "deeply problematic" that so many people were undergoing Islamic marriages without also undergoing civilly registered marriages. " In the event of a marriage break-up, this leaves many British citizens, particularly women, in a very vulnerable position without any financial remedies. It also allows polygamy to be practised on an industrial scale." He added: "Lady Tonge, Lady Flather and Lady Cox should be congratulated for their part in these debates on topics which the Government and Parliament have in the past shied away from. It is to be hoped that the Minister's assurance that "exaggerated respect for cultural norms and traditions" has been left behind augurs better for the future." The full text of the debates can be read here.
	Poland overturns ban on non-stun slaughter of animals in favour of religious privilege News \| Wed, 10th Dec 2014 The Polish Constitutional Tribunal has overturned a ban on the religious (non-stun) slaughter of animals. In January 2013, the Polish courts had placed a de facto ban on religious slaughter, by abolishing an exemption on humane slaughter requirements for Jews and Muslims. European wide animal welfare legislation requires all animals to be stunned before slaughter in order to minimise suffering. However, a derogation permits member states to allow non-stunning in the case of slaughter in observance with religious beliefs. The Polish ban was appealed by the Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland, among other groups. In July 2013 an attempt to legalise religious slaughter through legislation failed, leaving court action inevitable. The Constitutional Tribunal has now sided with the campaign group, agreeing that the ban infringed the rights of minority religious communities to practise their faith and traditions. Rabbi Menachem Margolin, director of the European Jewish Association, was said to be relieved at the ruling, which he said "prevents a dangerous precedent" that would have affected Jews across Europe. Reports indicate that the Tribunal ruled on a petition which claimed the ban was illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights. Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, described the court ruling as "regrettable". He said: "Whilst we support the right to religious freedom, it is not an absolute right – and in the interests of avoiding unnecessary pain and distress to animals it seems reasonable to expect it to be limited in this instance." However, Mr Evans added that the ruling served to strengthen the case for mandatory EU-wide labelling of meat from religious slaughter: "If religious groups are to be granted exemptions from animal welfare laws, it is essential that meat from non-stun slaughter is accurately labelled enabling consumers to avoid such products if they so wish. At the moment such labelling is not required, and this needs to change."
	Britain First – foot soldiers of a ‘Christian Nation’? Opinion \| Mon, 8th Dec 2014 When mainstream politicians endorse the 'Christian Nation' narrative they feed both Muslim and Christian persecution complexes and pander to the far-right, argues Alastair Lichten. Elements in the current government like to promote the dog whistle message that Britain is a "Christian Nation". This is intended to reach out to their traditional voters who may be worried about the rise of Islam and the decline of historic Christian privilege. A version of this narrative is shared by the Christian/nationalist far-right who see themselves and their traditional religious/racial privileges as under threat from the spectres of 'the Muslims', 'militant secularists' or 'multiculturalists'. It marginalises Muslims from mainstream national identity, leaving them vulnerable to Islamist groups. Speaking to Christian Today, Alan Craig, the former head of the Christian People's Alliance, blamed the rise of far-right organisation Britain First on a "political elite" with an "inbuilt hostility against Christianity" who have "wrecked our heritage" as a Christian Nation. Speaking to the same newspaper Britain First's leader, Paul Golding, said: "What we stand for is not at all at odds with Christianity, our ideology is a Christian ideology". The organisation claims to have 155,000 registered activists – 75% of whom identify as Christian and their mission statement includes: "Christianity in Britain is under ferocious assault: many Christians now face discrimination and persecution because of their beliefs in many areas such as employment, business, and adoption. "We will restore Christianity as the bedrock and foundation of our national life as it has been for the last one thousand years." This is straight out of the Government's own 'Christian Nation' narrative. Numerous Ministers (including the last two Ministers for Faith) have sought to promote the, quite ludicrous, idea that Christians in modern Britain are being persecuted for their beliefs. This idea forms the basis of populist attacks against principles of secularism and equality. On the eve of the recent Rochester and Strood by-election, Paul Golding sought to drum up support for Britain First's candidate and their Christian Nation credentials. After gaining 56 votes their Facebook page featured a picture of Jesus wrapped in the British Flag and the caption: "WE THANK OUR SAVIOUR FOR THE VICTORY TONIGHT. ONE BLOOD, ONE NATION, ONE FAITH! Britain First" Understanding Britain First requires understanding the recent history the British National Party – from whom the group splintered in 2011. The BNP had achieved some relative electoral success under then leader Nick Griffin. Griffin recognised that openly race-based identity politics had become too toxic and strengthened the religious identity politics that had always been a part of the party and its predecessors. "Christian" as it always had been was used as code for white and "Muslim" became the new preferred code for immigrants and ethnic minorities. The BNP whipped up local scare stories about Christmas being cancelled or Christians being 'persecuted' and started to feature the phrase "What would Jesus do?" on prominent campaign posters. Griffin claimed to speak for the "traditional, upright, decent and honest Christianity that defended Europe from Islamic conquest, the Christianity of the Crusades and the Christianity of our forefathers". Of course the vast majority of Christians who find Britain First's views extremist and abhorrent are quick to claim that they are not true Christians. Just as the vast majority of Muslims who find Islamist groups extremist and abhorrent are quick to claim that they are not true Muslims. Religious identity politics are not about individuals' beliefs but about groups' privilege and power, where the players claim the right to not only define their own religious identity but to define that of others as well. Arguing over who is and isn't a 'true Christian' or a 'true Muslim' only reinforces this identity politics. Far-right movements feed off each other and poison the well for moderates. The EDL emerged as a response to a poppy burning protest by far-right Islamist groups in 2010. The EDL's activities served to demonise ordinary Muslims. Islamists, who are a tiny minority of the Muslim citizens living in the UK, used the threat of the EDL as a recruiting tool. The EDL used the rise of Islamist groups to recruit more members, who demonised ordinary Muslims. And so the cycle continues. The EDL's former leader, Tommy Robinson, has claimed that he is not particularly religious but believes it is important to defend Britain as a Christian Nation to protect against Islam and extremism. The echoes of the Government's own Christian Nation narrative are clear. Claiming that we are a Christian Nation and that our secular justice system is based on Christian principles also plays into the Islamist far-right's attack on universality. It allows them to put pressure on the Muslim community to distance themselves from such 'Christian' institutions and to rely on alternatives such as 'sharia courts'. To the Christian/nationalist far-right, Islamist attempts to promote a parallel religious legal system pose a threat – not to the rights of such a system's victims (predominantly Muslim women) – but to 'Christian' institutions. When Britain First's uniformed thugs print up their literature, 'invade' a local mosque or mount a "Christian patrol", they are not setting out to make legitimate reasoned criticisms of Muslim beliefs or Islamist practices. The silencing of legitimate criticism is key to them getting their message heard. When critics (including liberal and secular Muslims) are prevented from airing honest criticisms of Islamic beliefs; when human rights campaigners are labelled 'Islamophobic' for criticising Islamist organisations; when ex-Muslim are labelled bigots for sharing their personal experiences; this creates a vacuum which the far-right fill. Christian Nation style identity politics, when promoted by any source, only serves to breed a sense of entitlement in some Christian sub groups, while marginalising majority of British citizens who are non-religious (2013 BSA survey) and the country's growing religious minorities. We can be proud that our nation is home to people of all religions and none. Britons, be they Muslim or Christian, Hindu or atheist, may face many issues of religious privilege or discrimination but enjoy a greater degree of religious freedom and peace here than in any theocratic country. Whist we may all differ in our personally held beliefs, we share the same protection under universal human rights. Secularism not only provides a framework for protecting the rights of all citizens equally, but also to challenge the identity politics of the far-right (be they Islamist, nationalist or Christian) by refusing to divide our fellow citizens into 'true Muslims', 'false Christians' or 'real Britons'.

Quotes of the Week

"In too many countries, caveats and legal loopholes have been intentionally created to try to circumvent or supersede international human rights obligations. This trend continues, with efforts to introduce parallel "Islamic human rights" frameworks, or ad hoc constitutional opt-outs, sabotaging the very basis of specifically human rights: namely, that we have them because we are human and they derive from our humanity."
Gulalai Ismail and Agnes Ojera, IHEU "Freedom of Thought" report.

Essays of the Week

Thank Secularists for Christmas
Tina Dupuy, UK Progressive

Upcoming Events

The Greatest Variety Show Ever

Sat, 13th Dec 2014

	NSS warns against bill allowing religious exemptions to Northern Ireland’s equality laws News \| Wed, 10th Dec 2014 Democratic Unionist Party backbencher Paul Givan MLA (pictured above) has proposed a Private Members Bill that would create a religious exemption in Northern Ireland's equality legislation. The exemption would allow businesses to refuse services to customers on the grounds of "strongly held religious convictions". First Minister Peter Robinson has backed the Bill, saying "tolerance must include provisions to ensure that those with deeply held religious views are protected." But the National Secular Society has warned the Bill could "legitimise victimisation of already persecuted minorities". The Bill was prompted by the case of Ashers Baking Company, who refused to bake a cake with a message endorsing same-sex marriage. The Equality Commission subsequently pursued a civil case against the bakery. A petition launched by three DUP MPs accused the Commission of being "anti-democratic," discriminatory, and of abusing public funds in pursuing the company. As a result of the Ashers Bakery case, Givan has now published a consultation paper on a "Northern Ireland Freedom of Conscience Bill." In the consultation, Givan writes that "some equality legislation, passed with the intention of protecting minorities, is having an adverse effect on those with religious belief." The 'Conscience Bill' would allow religious business owners to decline to serve customers, if the service would "promote or facilitate" a same-sex union. Givan explains: "If a religious goods and services provider was required by the legislation to provide a service in a way that endorsed or promoted a same-sex union, or in some sense facilitated a same-sex sexual relationship, the provider would be made complicit in affirming same-sex sexual relationships. They would thus have to choose between acting in violation of their protected characteristic identity, surrendering their faith identity or ceasing service provision." Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, warned that the Bill could legitimise victimisation of already persecuted minorities. He said: "I hope it will be strenuously rejected by all those who recognise the contribution that equality laws and Human Rights have made to our becoming a more compassionate and just society." The Rainbow Project, which campaigns for the "health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender people," has said that the Bill would actually be a "license to discriminate" against homosexuals. The director of the Rainbow Project, John O'Doherty, added that "this proposed legislation will only be used to discriminate against LGB people" and that it "is not motivated by a desire to protect those of religious belief but by a hostility to LGB people and their hard-won rights." O'Doherty said that the proposed Bill "is just updating 'No dogs, no blacks, no Irish' to include 'no gays'." Givan claims that the 'Conscience Bill' would not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation alone. He writes that the Bill would "not mean that an Evangelical grocer would be able to refuse to sell apples to a gay man. The selling of apples would not involve the Evangelical grocer being required to endorse, promote or facilitate a same-sex sexual relationship in violation of his/her faith identity so there is no conflict." However, Givan notes, the Bill would "mean that an Evangelical photographer would not be required by law to choose between either taking photos of a civil partnership ceremony, and hereby act in violation of their faith identity by endorsing, promoting and celebrating same-sex unions – or lose their livelihood." The Rainbow Project argues that the amendment would mean business could legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. O'Doherty said that the religious exemption would mean that "restaurants could deny a same-sex couple a table as this could be facilitating same-sex relations. A mortgage provider could deny a mortgage to a same-sex couple as it would be facilitating same-sex relations. Hoteliers could deny a room to a same-sex couple as it would be facilitating same-sex relations." "The proposed legislation would grant special rights for people of religious belief, and only those people, to deny access to goods, facilities and services on the grounds of sexual orientation." An LGBT Labour Northern Ireland spokesman said that "the LGBT community are part of Northern Ireland" and that "Northern Ireland needs an Equality Act." The UK Equality Act 2010 does not apply to Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein said it was "opposed to any dilution of equality legislation." The consultation on the proposed amendment can be found and completed here.
	New report on UK sharia ‘marriages’ exposes “tip of the iceberg” News \| Wed, 10th Dec 2014 A report by a human rights group has exposed the vulnerability of Muslim women living in Islamic 'marriages' in the UK. The report finds that the widespread practice of polygamy has left Muslim women without legal rights upon 'divorce', entirely dependent on their 'husbands' for financial support, and often unable to leave sham 'marriages' for fear of social ostracism or bringing "shame" to their family. According to the report, written by AURAT, a charity which supports victims of honour-based violence, many Muslim women are unsure of their legal rights and some women were even left believing that 'marriage' ceremonies were valid simply because they had taken place in the UK. The report was welcomed by the National Secular Society, which has expressed concern that the rise of sharia is creating a "parallel legal system" within Britain's Muslim community. Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns manager, said: "Islamic 'marriages' and sharia courts are quasi-legal systems operating within Muslim communities, and, as the report shows, both discriminate against women, who sometimes have little knowledge of their legal rights and are unable to access support services and are therefore all-too-often becoming trapped in insular religious communities." The report cites examples from women who told their stories to AURAT, including many women who were married, by their parents, to men who later turned out to have as many as three 'wives' living in different households. One woman told how she was left claiming benefits simply to pay the mortgage on her 'husband's' house when he refused to support her. He had three other wives living in different houses. In her foreword to the report, Baroness Cox writes that the shocking situation described in the research is "just the tip of the iceberg". Cox says that "there are, literally, countless more women in similar predicaments" as the women who volunteered their testimony. Cox draws attention to the role of "sharia law principles" in exacerbating the situation, worsening the "plight of women in Islamic communities." Although women from many backgrounds may suffer abuse or "other problems associated with dysfunctional families", Cox writes, sharia law makes these situations much worse for women. Cox says that discrimination against women and girls is "inherent" in sharia law. The report notes that "in mainstream Islam, a husband does not have to undertake the same process as the wife when seeking a Talaq (an Islamic 'divorce'). He merely has to say 'I divorce you' three times, whereas a wife must meet various conditions and pay a fee." The report found that women married under Nikah (Islamic 'marriage' ceremonies) "can suffer significant disadvantages because they lack legal protection". One woman, named as Rafa in the report, "realised she had no rights to the family home" after her husband walked out on her. Rafa's husband had "made sure the property was in his sole name" and this left her with "no recourse to recompense from the property because their marriage was not legally recognised" in the UK. Of the fifty women interviewed for the qualitative research, 46 identified themselves as being married. Only ten percent of those marriages were legally recognised by English law. Though the sample size was small given the "limited resources" available, Baroness Cox writes that she believes there is "much truth" to the report and calls for a "systematic investigation" into the problem. Over half of the women interviewed were unaware that they had fewer legal rights in their unrecognised religious 'marriages'. Two thirds of the women had been married in the family home, and "assumed that, because the ceremony had taken place in the UK, it automatically counted as a valid marriage." Two thirds of the 'married' women said that their 'husband' had more than one wife. 22 of the women reported that their 'husband' lives "with his other wife/wives part or full-time." According to the report, "nearly all" of the women whose 'husband' had additional wives were not supported financially by their husbands. Three quarters of this groups relied on state benefits to survive. One of the major underlying problems the research found was that the broader Muslim community would not support women who 'divorced' their 'husbands'. There were also significant financial costs for women who wished to have an Islamic 'divorce'. The research found that almost half of the married women said "the Muslim community would not support them if they sought a Talaq." The report noted that "there is a growing concern that many Muslim women in Britain today are suffering severe gender discrimination but lack knowledge of their rights under British law. Moreover, seeking help from non-Muslim professional and legal sources may be strongly discouraged as it may be deemed to incur 'shame' on Muslim families and communities". The research concluded that "vulnerable women are often inhibited from getting the help they really need." AURAT is now calling for Mosques and Muslim community leaders to inform families about the diminished rights women have under religious marriages that remain unrecognised by the state. It also urged professional and public bodies to be made more visible to Muslim women who may not be aware of the support services available. In June 2014 Justice Minister Simon Hughes told the House of Commons that "The Government is committed to the protection and promotion of the rights of women, families and children. This includes raising awareness of the legal consequences of 'religious only' marriages and encouraging mosques to register in order to be able to carry out legally recognised marriages in their various facilities." Read the report: Equal and Free? 50 Muslim Women's Experiences of Marriage in Britain Today
	IHEU report reveals extent of global discrimination against non-believers News \| Thu, 11th Dec 2014 The International Humanist and Ethical Union has released its second annual report on the global state of human rights for non-believers, atheists and agnostics. The report found a "trend towards targeting 'atheists'" across the world, and concluded that "the overwhelming majority of countries fail to respect the rights of atheists and freethinkers." The report draws attention to "hate campaigns against the non-religious" in 13 Muslim-majority countries, and examples of legislation and hate speech designed to curtail the rights of non-believers. These include a law in Saudi Arabia which equates atheism with terrorism and which prohibits "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion." The report also singles out Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who branded secularism, humanism and liberalism as "deviant" and who dismissed human rights as a danger to Islam. The Egyptian Ministry of Youth is also cited in the report, for their campaign to warn Egyptians about "the dangers of atheism". Although the IHEU 'Freedom of Thought' study paints a grim picture of human rights across the globe, the authors do make a case for some positive trends. They write that, "if 2014 has seen something of a surge in hate directed at atheists, it is at least a backlash against a steadily globalising conception of non-religious identities." "The non-religious are also recognising themselves more, stumbling upon new terms and new arguments through international media and the internet, coming together online, talking, in some countries meeting in secret. The non-religious are raising their heads above the parapet. There is a backlash, but it's a backlash that is a response to a surge of new ideas and new connections, and we can hold onto that." The report gave every country in the world a "Freedom of Thought" status, with rankings ranging from "free and equal" to "grave violations." Countries ranked as "free and equal" include Sierra Leone, Taiwan, Province of China, Estonia, Kosovo, Belgium, The Netherlands and Fiji. Nations with "grave violations" against the human rights of the non-religious include Somalia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, China, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq. The report notes that "19 countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 12 of those countries it is punishable by death. Pakistan doesn't have a death sentence for apostasy but it does for blasphemy, and the threshold for 'blasphemy' can very low; so in effect you can be put to death for expressing atheism in 13 countries." The United Kingdom is rated as having "system discrimination." The IHEU report finds that "religion has little unwanted influence over most people in daily life, and the number identifying as non-religious in the most recent census has increased dramatically; however some education reforms in the past few years including in 2014 have increased the influence of religion in schools and removed secular options from some courses." The report cites a number of "systemic issues" in the UK, including "systematic religious privilege" like the control of "some public or social services" by religious groups and the existence of an established church. The research also notes that "religious schools have powers to discriminate in admissions or employment."
	Law Society did not consult before issuing Sharia guidance News \| Mon, 8th Dec 2014 A Freedom of Information request from an unnamed complainant has revealed that the Law Society did not consult any religious groups or individuals before issuing its now-withdrawn Sharia guidance. On 9 September a Freedom of Information request was made to the Law Society, asking about the Sharia Succession Rules note which the society had published earlier in the year. The applicant asked whether "any religious organisations or lobbyists had been consulted before the decision to publish" the guidance and additionally if "feminist/women organisations and lobbyists had been consulted." The applicant also asked who had authored the note. Though the Law Society would not name the authors, it did disclose that "no 'Sharia Law experts' had been consulted and that no external individuals or organisations had lobbied the Society or been involved in drafting the Note." The Law Society has since said that it recognises "it was not appropriate to issue guidance based on only one of many interpretations of Sharia principles." The guidance had stated that under Sharia Law "illegitimate" heirs were not eligible to inherit and that "the male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised." The guidance was recently withdrawn, some nine months after it was published and after a long campaign from a diverse range of bodies. The National Secular Society has also learned that all training courses in sharia have now been "delisted" from the Law Society's website.
	House of Lords debates FGM and Sharia Law in the UK News \| Fri, 12th Dec 2014 On Thursday 11 December, there were debates in the House of Lords on female genital mutilation (FGM) and the "impact of Sharia Law on the United Kingdom." In the first debate. on FGM, raised by Baroness Rendell of Babergh, peers asked about Government progress in encouraging prosecutions under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. Baroness Tonge, an honorary associate of the NSS, spoke of how FGM "causes untold physical damage to a woman" and equated the practice to a family member sexually abusing a young girl. Lady Tonge called for parents to be prosecuted if their child is the victim of FGM. Lord Faulks, Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy, noted that "it is a source of frustration to all noble Lords that while FGM has been a specific criminal offence for 29 years—the original Act—no prosecutions were brought." Addressing an ongoing FGM court case, Lord Faulks added that "It is probably not appropriate to comment on what one hopes the outcome of the case would be, but, whatever happens, the publicity that will attend that prosecution should, I hope, send a strong message in itself." The Minister cited research part-funded by the Government which "revealed that approximately 60,000 girls are at risk of FGM in the UK." Lord Faulks told the House that: "The Government are committed to preventing and ending the harmful and unacceptable practice [of FGM]. I agree that successful prosecutions are a key part of stamping out FGM and would send out a strong message on the rule of law." In his closing remarks, Lord Faulks added that he was glad that "we have left the exaggerated respect for cultural norms and traditions" behind, and he told the House that "the Government are committed to doing everything we can" to stamp out FGM. In the following debate Baroness Flather, also an honorary associate of the NSS, asked for the Government's "assessment of the impact of Sharia law in the United Kingdom, particularly on women." Baroness Flather noted that there were now more than 80 Sharia councils in the UK, and argued that "they are not trained lawyers" and raised concerns that the councils do not keep proper records and make "ad hoc" judgements. Citing the retired Bishop of Rochester, Lady Flather argued that "Sharia is discriminatory against women, not only in relation to marriage and children, but in most aspects." Baroness Warsi began her comments by urging Lady Flather to "read back the speech that she just made." Lady Warsi questioned whether the peers were "debating a series of headlines which regularly appear in the Daily Mail." Lady Flather responded that "there is so much evidence which has been collected by various researchers and taken from women. These are their own stories and views; this is not about headlines." Lady Warsi continued, arguing that there was a difference between "Sharia and Sharia law" and that "Sharia exists in the United Kingdom in our multicultural society." Lady Warsi raised the example of Sharia-compliant financial bonds and student loans, as well as halal food and circumcision. Addressing the issue of Muslim women left without rights in unrecognised nikah Islamic 'marriages', Lady Warsi suggested that the Government might formally recognise Islamic religious 'marriages' so that men with multiple wives could be charged with bigamy. Baroness Cox then drew attention to the situation of women trapped in Islamic 'marriages', and discussed a new report on that subject (covered by the NSS earlier this week). The report detailed the concerns that Lady Flather raised, that women in Islamic 'marriages' are left without legal protection in the event of a 'divorce' and that many Muslim women are unaware of their legal rights. Lady Cox said: "several Muslim women have told me that men in their communities may each have up to 20 children," adding that this leads to children growing up in "dysfunctional families." Citing information from the report, Lady Cox said: "Two-thirds of those who are married are in polygamous marriages. Some say that they did not know that they were a second or third wife when they were married. Of these, almost all said that their husbands fail to provide them with financial support, in contravention of Islamic teaching. Many of these women are desperately unhappy." Lord Ahmad, concluding the debate, said "there is no parallel court system in this country" and that the Government "have no intention of changing this position in relation to any part of England and Wales." Lord Ahmad added that "the law of the land will prevail irrespective of what religious practice or community you may belong to." NSS Executive Director Keith Porteous Wood, who was present at the debates, said it was "shameful" that despite being outlawed, so much FGM was still being carried out in the UK and "going almost entirely unpunished." On the subject of unregistered marriages, he said it was "deeply problematic" that so many people were undergoing Islamic marriages without also undergoing civilly registered marriages. " In the event of a marriage break-up, this leaves many British citizens, particularly women, in a very vulnerable position without any financial remedies. It also allows polygamy to be practised on an industrial scale." He added: "Lady Tonge, Lady Flather and Lady Cox should be congratulated for their part in these debates on topics which the Government and Parliament have in the past shied away from. It is to be hoped that the Minister's assurance that "exaggerated respect for cultural norms and traditions" has been left behind augurs better for the future." The full text of the debates can be read here.
	Poland overturns ban on non-stun slaughter of animals in favour of religious privilege News \| Wed, 10th Dec 2014 The Polish Constitutional Tribunal has overturned a ban on the religious (non-stun) slaughter of animals. In January 2013, the Polish courts had placed a de facto ban on religious slaughter, by abolishing an exemption on humane slaughter requirements for Jews and Muslims. European wide animal welfare legislation requires all animals to be stunned before slaughter in order to minimise suffering. However, a derogation permits member states to allow non-stunning in the case of slaughter in observance with religious beliefs. The Polish ban was appealed by the Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland, among other groups. In July 2013 an attempt to legalise religious slaughter through legislation failed, leaving court action inevitable. The Constitutional Tribunal has now sided with the campaign group, agreeing that the ban infringed the rights of minority religious communities to practise their faith and traditions. Rabbi Menachem Margolin, director of the European Jewish Association, was said to be relieved at the ruling, which he said "prevents a dangerous precedent" that would have affected Jews across Europe. Reports indicate that the Tribunal ruled on a petition which claimed the ban was illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights. Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, described the court ruling as "regrettable". He said: "Whilst we support the right to religious freedom, it is not an absolute right – and in the interests of avoiding unnecessary pain and distress to animals it seems reasonable to expect it to be limited in this instance." However, Mr Evans added that the ruling served to strengthen the case for mandatory EU-wide labelling of meat from religious slaughter: "If religious groups are to be granted exemptions from animal welfare laws, it is essential that meat from non-stun slaughter is accurately labelled enabling consumers to avoid such products if they so wish. At the moment such labelling is not required, and this needs to change."
	Britain First – foot soldiers of a ‘Christian Nation’? Opinion \| Mon, 8th Dec 2014 When mainstream politicians endorse the 'Christian Nation' narrative they feed both Muslim and Christian persecution complexes and pander to the far-right, argues Alastair Lichten. Elements in the current government like to promote the dog whistle message that Britain is a "Christian Nation". This is intended to reach out to their traditional voters who may be worried about the rise of Islam and the decline of historic Christian privilege. A version of this narrative is shared by the Christian/nationalist far-right who see themselves and their traditional religious/racial privileges as under threat from the spectres of 'the Muslims', 'militant secularists' or 'multiculturalists'. It marginalises Muslims from mainstream national identity, leaving them vulnerable to Islamist groups. Speaking to Christian Today, Alan Craig, the former head of the Christian People's Alliance, blamed the rise of far-right organisation Britain First on a "political elite" with an "inbuilt hostility against Christianity" who have "wrecked our heritage" as a Christian Nation. Speaking to the same newspaper Britain First's leader, Paul Golding, said: "What we stand for is not at all at odds with Christianity, our ideology is a Christian ideology". The organisation claims to have 155,000 registered activists – 75% of whom identify as Christian and their mission statement includes: "Christianity in Britain is under ferocious assault: many Christians now face discrimination and persecution because of their beliefs in many areas such as employment, business, and adoption. "We will restore Christianity as the bedrock and foundation of our national life as it has been for the last one thousand years." This is straight out of the Government's own 'Christian Nation' narrative. Numerous Ministers (including the last two Ministers for Faith) have sought to promote the, quite ludicrous, idea that Christians in modern Britain are being persecuted for their beliefs. This idea forms the basis of populist attacks against principles of secularism and equality. On the eve of the recent Rochester and Strood by-election, Paul Golding sought to drum up support for Britain First's candidate and their Christian Nation credentials. After gaining 56 votes their Facebook page featured a picture of Jesus wrapped in the British Flag and the caption: "WE THANK OUR SAVIOUR FOR THE VICTORY TONIGHT. ONE BLOOD, ONE NATION, ONE FAITH! Britain First" Understanding Britain First requires understanding the recent history the British National Party – from whom the group splintered in 2011. The BNP had achieved some relative electoral success under then leader Nick Griffin. Griffin recognised that openly race-based identity politics had become too toxic and strengthened the religious identity politics that had always been a part of the party and its predecessors. "Christian" as it always had been was used as code for white and "Muslim" became the new preferred code for immigrants and ethnic minorities. The BNP whipped up local scare stories about Christmas being cancelled or Christians being 'persecuted' and started to feature the phrase "What would Jesus do?" on prominent campaign posters. Griffin claimed to speak for the "traditional, upright, decent and honest Christianity that defended Europe from Islamic conquest, the Christianity of the Crusades and the Christianity of our forefathers". Of course the vast majority of Christians who find Britain First's views extremist and abhorrent are quick to claim that they are not true Christians. Just as the vast majority of Muslims who find Islamist groups extremist and abhorrent are quick to claim that they are not true Muslims. Religious identity politics are not about individuals' beliefs but about groups' privilege and power, where the players claim the right to not only define their own religious identity but to define that of others as well. Arguing over who is and isn't a 'true Christian' or a 'true Muslim' only reinforces this identity politics. Far-right movements feed off each other and poison the well for moderates. The EDL emerged as a response to a poppy burning protest by far-right Islamist groups in 2010. The EDL's activities served to demonise ordinary Muslims. Islamists, who are a tiny minority of the Muslim citizens living in the UK, used the threat of the EDL as a recruiting tool. The EDL used the rise of Islamist groups to recruit more members, who demonised ordinary Muslims. And so the cycle continues. The EDL's former leader, Tommy Robinson, has claimed that he is not particularly religious but believes it is important to defend Britain as a Christian Nation to protect against Islam and extremism. The echoes of the Government's own Christian Nation narrative are clear. Claiming that we are a Christian Nation and that our secular justice system is based on Christian principles also plays into the Islamist far-right's attack on universality. It allows them to put pressure on the Muslim community to distance themselves from such 'Christian' institutions and to rely on alternatives such as 'sharia courts'. To the Christian/nationalist far-right, Islamist attempts to promote a parallel religious legal system pose a threat – not to the rights of such a system's victims (predominantly Muslim women) – but to 'Christian' institutions. When Britain First's uniformed thugs print up their literature, 'invade' a local mosque or mount a "Christian patrol", they are not setting out to make legitimate reasoned criticisms of Muslim beliefs or Islamist practices. The silencing of legitimate criticism is key to them getting their message heard. When critics (including liberal and secular Muslims) are prevented from airing honest criticisms of Islamic beliefs; when human rights campaigners are labelled 'Islamophobic' for criticising Islamist organisations; when ex-Muslim are labelled bigots for sharing their personal experiences; this creates a vacuum which the far-right fill. Christian Nation style identity politics, when promoted by any source, only serves to breed a sense of entitlement in some Christian sub groups, while marginalising majority of British citizens who are non-religious (2013 BSA survey) and the country's growing religious minorities. We can be proud that our nation is home to people of all religions and none. Britons, be they Muslim or Christian, Hindu or atheist, may face many issues of religious privilege or discrimination but enjoy a greater degree of religious freedom and peace here than in any theocratic country. Whist we may all differ in our personally held beliefs, we share the same protection under universal human rights. Secularism not only provides a framework for protecting the rights of all citizens equally, but also to challenge the identity politics of the far-right (be they Islamist, nationalist or Christian) by refusing to divide our fellow citizens into 'true Muslims', 'false Christians' or 'real Britons'.

Newsline 12 December 2014

News, Blogs & Opinion

Quotes of the Week

Essays of the Week

Upcoming Events

Sign up for our newsletter