Newsline 16 January 2015

Newsline 16 January 2015

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

Charlie Hebdo Editorial: Je Suis Charlie Means Je Suis Secularism

Opinion | Thu, 15th Jan 2015

This is a translation of the editorial from the first Charlie Hebdo published since the Paris attacks. It is reproduced here in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo.

For a week now, Charlie, an atheist magazine, has accomplished more miracles than all the saints and prophets together. That of which we are the most proud is that you have in your hands the magazine that we have always produced, in the company of those who have always produced it.

What made us laugh the most, is that the bells of Notre Dame rang in our honor ... for a week now, Charlie has been moving far more than mountains across the world. For a week now, as Willem has shown us so magnificently in his drawing, Charlie has many new friends. Some anonymous, and some global celebrities. Some humble and some affluent. Some miscreants and some religious leaders. Some sincere and some akin to jesuits. Some who will be with us for the rest of our lives, and some who are just passing by.

We take them all on board today, we have neither the time nor the heart to separate them out. But that doesn't mean that we are fooled. We wholeheartedly thank those in their millions whether simple citizens or embodying institutions who are truly at our sides, who deeply and sincerely "are Charlie." They will know who they are. Pissing off the others who don't give a fuck anyway.

There is however a question which still gnaws away at us: Are we finally going to see the foul expression "secular fundamentalist" disappear from political and intellectual lexicon?

Are we finally going to stop devising learned semantic expressions describing equally assassins and their victims?

In recent years, we have felt rather lonely, trying to push back with our pencils straightforward bullshit and pseudo-intellectual subtleties that they were throwing at our faces and that of our friends who were strongly defending secularism: Islamophobes, Christianophobes, troublemakers, people assuming no responsibility, those who throw oil on the fire, racists, you-asked-for-it ... yes we condemn terrorism, but. Yes it is not good to threaten cartoonists with death, but. Yes, setting fire to a magazine's headquarters is wrong, but.

We've heard it all, as have our friends. We've often tried to laugh it off, because that's what we're best at.

But now, really, we'd like to laugh at something else. Because it's already starting again.

Cabu, Charb, Honore, Tignous, Wolinski, Elsa Cayat, Bernard Maris, Moustapha Ourrad, Michel Renaud, Franck Brinsolaro, Frederic Boisseau, Ahmed Merabet, Clarissa Jean-Philippe, Philippe Braham, Yohan Cohen, Yoav Hattab, Francois-Michel Saada, their blood was not yet dry and Thierry Meyssan was explaining to his Facebook fans that this was obviously a Judeo-western-American conspiracy.

Who were the victims?

We were already hearing, here and there, these delicate people put on airs and graces on witnessing last Sunday's gathering, dribbling endless pettiness, seeking to justify, openly or in whispers, terrorism and religious fascism, expressing indignation at the fact that we can say police = SS, among other things.

No, in this massacre, no one death is less unjust than another. Franck, who died in Charlie's premises, and all his [police] colleagues killed during this barbaric week, died to defend ideas which may not even have been their own.

Nevertheless we are going to try to be optimistic, even though it is out of season.

We will hope that as of this January 7, 2015, strongly defending secularism will be second nature for everyone.

That we will finally stop posturing for electoral reasons or through cowardice, legitimizing or even tolerating community separatism and cultural relativism, which lead to but one thing: Religious totalitarianism.

Yes, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a fact, yes, international geopolitics is a succession of manoeuvres and underhand blows, yes, the social situation of "populations of Islamic origin" in France, as people say, is deeply unjust, yes, we must fight unremittingly against racism and all types of discrimination.

Fortunately there are several instruments with which we can try to solve these serious problems but they are all inoperative if one of them is missing: Secularism. Not affirmative secularism, not inclusive secularism, not I-don't-know-what-kind-of-secularism. Secularism full stop.

Pushing for universal rights, it alone, allows for equality, liberty, brotherhood and sisterhood. It alone allows for total freedom of conscience which all religions, as soon as they move from the arena of the strictly intimate into the political arena, deny, more or less openly according to their marketing position. Oddly enough, it alone allows believers and others to live in peace. All those who claim to defend Muslims, while accepting the totalitarian religious rhetoric, are in fact defending their executioners. The first victims of Islamic fascism are the Muslims.

The millions of anonymous people, all the institutions, all the heads of state and government, all the political, intellectual and media celebrities, all the religious dignitaries who this week proclaimed "Je Suis Charlie" should know that also means "I am secularism." We are convinced that as far as most of our supporters are concerned, that goes without saying. The others can do what they like with it.

Last but not least. We would like to send a message to Pope Francis, who this week, he as well, "is Charlie": We will only accept that the bells of Notre Dame are ringing in our honour when it is the Femen who are ringing them.

Sky News cuts-off live interview and “apologises” for airing image of Prophet Mohammed

News | Thu, 15th Jan 2015

Caroline Fourest, former writer for Charlie Hebdo and honorary associate of the National Secular Society, was cut off during a live interview with Sky News after she held up a copy of the Charlie Hebdo magazine cover whilst on air.

Fourest denounced those who "kill in the name of a religion" before saying that she was "very sad that journalists in the UK do not support us" and that she felt journalists in the UK "betray what journalism is about by thinking that people can't be grown[-up] enough to decide if a drawing is [offensive] or not because you are not even showing it."

At that point in the interview, Fourest picked up a copy of the front cover in question and said it was "completely crazy that in the UK you cannot show a simple drawing… with Mohammed."

At that point, the camera began panning up away from the magazine cover before it cut away back to the Sky News studio. The host said that "at Sky News we have chosen not to show that, so we would appreciate Caroline not showing that."

The presenter then turned to the camera and said "I do apologise for any of our viewers who may have been offended by that as you know here at Sky News we have taken an editorial decision not to feature the cover of Charlie Hebdo."

The French satirical magazine published a record five million copies this week, in its first issue since the attack which claimed the lives of ten of its editorial staff.

NSS President Terry Sanderson said: ""Even the BBC is prepared to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo, it seems extraordinary that Sky News has permitted the fanatics and extremists to dictate its editorial policy. I am very disappointed that such a prestigious news channel has chosen to cave in to the threats of terrorists. Caroline Fourest is right to call out the British media for its cowardice and hypocrisy."

Since the attack, some UK publications have finally decided to publish images of the Charlie Hebdo cover featuring the Prophet Mohammed. The Guardian reprinted the cover in an article on Tuesday 13 January, with a disclaimer which read: "Warning: this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some may find offensive."

The BBC came under fire after its editorial guidance was discussed on Question Time. The guidance read "due care and consideration must be made regarding the use of religious symbols in images which may cause offence. The Prophet Mohammed must not be represented in any shape or form."

The NSS called for the restrictions to be abolished, and the guidance has now been withdrawn. Since then the BBC has shown depictions of Mohammed on News at Ten.

The interview with Caroline Fourest on Sky News can be seen here.

Tory MP introduces amendment to make council prayers compulsory

News | Thu, 15th Jan 2015

Conservative MP Philip Davies has introduced an amendment to the Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill that would make prayers compulsory at the start of local authority meetings.

Davies' amendment would alter the first clause of the bill so that it would read, "the business at a meeting of a local authority in England shall include time for (a) prayers or other religious observance, or (b) observance connected with a religious or philosophical belief."

Currently, the bill says that authorities "may" include time for prayers, leaving the decision to local authorities to decide. The NSS opposes the bill in its current form because the end result would still be prayers being imposed at the start of meetings by a majority of councillors on the minority.

The NSS argues that if councillors wish to pray before meetings they should simply do so before the official business of local authority meetings begins.

This amendment, however, would create a statutory obligation on local authorities to include time for prayers.

Philip Davies is known for a conservative voting record, he voted "very strongly against" equal gay rights and same-sex marriage.

Fellow Conservative MP Edward Leigh has also moved to introduce a clause requiring councils to "keep in mind the pre-eminence of the Judaeo-Christian tradition as the historical foundations of the United Kingdom" when religious observances are held.

In the recent committee stage debate on the bill, Jake Berry MP, who is believed to have introduced the Private Member's Bill at the behest of Eric Pickles and the Department for Local Government, lauded the bill for providing the "freedom to pray and to hold prayers at the start of council meetings, should that local authority wish to do so."

Mr Berry said faith was an "important part of national life in Britain" and that his Bill was necessary to meet "an aggressive and unwelcome secular attack on our core British values."

In addition to local council meetings, the Bill seeks to make provision for the inclusion of prayers at meetings of other local authorities bodies such as Transport for London, London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, joint waste authorities and internal drainage boards.

Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns manager, said: "Clearly there should be no compulsion in religion, and in a secular, pluralistic society, there can be no justification for allowing Christians, or indeed any other religious group, the ability to assert their supremacy over other religious groups or over non-religious people, by making their religious observances part of the formal business of local council meetings"

"Usually, such a lamentable Private Members' Bill would fall by the wayside, but with the Government and opposition frontbenches supporting it, this one looks set to clear it House of Commons stage, despite receiving very little in the way of scrutiny."

Find out more about this Bill here. The full NSS briefing on the Bill can be read here

MPs want God at centre of local democracy

Opinion | Thu, 15th Jan 2015

When Conservative councillor Imran Khan opted out of Christian prayers at council meetings he was subject to ostracization, abuse and deselection. He's urging MPs to keep sectarianism out of local politics by voting against the Local Government (Religious Etc. Observances) Bill.

Tory MP Jake Berry's Private Member's Bill, which seeks to put God back at the centre of local democracy reaches the Report Stage on Friday. MPs are seeking to overturn a 2012 High Court ruling that the law does not give councils the power to introduce a religious dimension to meetings. As anyone who has attended a formal council meeting where prayers are taking place knows, council business proceedings begin with a vicar reading the Lord's Prayer, usually accompanied by prayers asking for God to ensure councillors make decisions based on his holy guidance, and asks God to kindly ensure councillors don't act corruptly. Importantly, the prayers are recognized as a formal part of council business, everyone in the room is upstanding, looking downwards, and many will chant out the words aloud.

Following a successful campaign led by the National Secular Society in 2012 and a High Court judgment, this embarrassing anachronism should have been kicked out of councils forever. However, religionists responded as expected and their chief cheerleader in the Commons, Eric Pickles MP, pleaded with councils to carry on as normal, promising to lobby for the legislation being discussed on Friday.

The Local Government (Religious Etc. Observances) Bill seeks to make provision for the inclusion of prayers or "other religious observance" or "observance connected with a religious or philosophical belief" at local authority meetings. Back in 2012, the High Court ruled that "The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a Council is not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue."

Mr Justice Ouseley, the lead judge of the Administrative Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, stated in his ruling that the 1972 Local Government Act did not give councils the power to introduce a religious dimension to their meetings, commenting:

"I do not think that the 1972 Act, dealing with the organisation, management and decision-making of local Councils, should be interpreted as permitting the religious views of one group of Councillors, however sincere or large in number, to exclude or, even to a modest extent, to impose burdens on or even to mark out those who do not share their views and do not wish to participate in their expression of them. They are all equally elected Councillors."

Local authorities have a statutory duty to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Many councillors and residents attending meetings are not Christian or do not belong to any other faith, but are being forced to sit through Christian, and in rare cases, other religions' prayers. As a former Tory councillor, I found this experience to be wholly alienating.

As someone who does not wish to recite Christian prayers, I had to wait outside the room while the prayers were taking place. This clearly set me apart as being different from all the other councillors, several of whom suggested to me that not only was I being "difficult" as this was such a trivial issue, but that I had no right to exempt myself from the meetings. Since I had to walk across the floor afterwards, bumping past the mainly elderly white audience, people thought I was either purposely trying to be disrespectful to their beliefs, or I was late to the meeting – something taken very seriously by other councillors.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy read out my statement to Eric Pickles on Channel 4 News, who responded by saying that Britain was a "Christian country" and that "An act of Christian worship has been part of our cultural heritage and this is a fundamental attack on that. It does seem to me that it's been part of our culture to do so, and I think there's nothing wrong in standing up for part of British, traditional Christian culture."

Senior Tory councillors at the time advised me that if I did not like how things were being done, then I should consider leaving the country. I received an email (which I have retained) from an executive member of council - copied to the rest of the Conservative group – that read: "As far as I am concerned the most basic gift we can offer the minorities is the one we all enjoy and that is freedom. Freedom to not attend, walk away, or go somewhere else if you don't like the way we live." This view was shared widely by the other Conservative members at Reigate and Banstead Borough Council.

Being told to consider leaving the country if I do not agree with a Tory culturally chauvinist view of society – one at odds with the judgment of a High Court Judge – certainly sits uneasily with my need to participate as an active citizen who believes in liberal democratic freedoms. However, it is not just local councillors calling for the prioritisation of Christianity above other communities in councils. Tory MP, Sir Edward Leigh hopes to amend the bill so that it is not just religion that will be formalised in councils but specifically Christianity. He hopes to move the following amendment:

"Judaeo-Christian tradition - In observing the provisions in this Act, councils shall keep in mind the preeminence of the Judaeo-Christian tradition as the historical foundation of the United Kingdom."

Labour's Lyn Brown MP (Shadow Communities Minister) also called the 2012 High Court ruling "perverse" in Parliament at Committee stage. Bearing in mind the adverse impact on political participation, it is hard to believe the Bill has received serious scrutiny or consideration in parliament, with MPs on this Public Bill Committee failing to properly consider the implications of the divisive legislation.

Supporters of this Bill claim it increases 'religious freedom'. In fact, democracy requires freedom to participate in public proceedings on an equal footing with everyone else. Councillors who want to pray before meetings should not be stopped from doing so. But, including prayers as part of formal council business prevents me and many others like me up and down the country from participating in active political life. This Friday, I hope parliamentarians on all sides of the House recognise that an essential feature of being British is the equal opportunity to participate in local democracy.

The NSS briefing on the Bill can be read here

See also: Muslim councillor deselected from Horley after prayer row

Imran Khan is a former Conservative member of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the NSS.

Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson to present 2015 Secularist of the Year Awards

News | Thu, 15th Jan 2015

The National Secular Society is pleased to announce that Guardian cartoonist and author Martin Rowson will present this year's Secularist of the Year awards.

NSS President Terry Sanderson said : "Cartoonists have been on the front line of the fight for secularism and the right to free speech for the past few years. It is appropriate, then, to have one of Britain's best-known practitioners of the art to present this year's prize. Martin Rowson is an old friend and honorary associate of the NSS and we are thrilled to welcome him to Secularist of the Year, which this year is going to be very special."

The prize for Secularist of the Year is awarded annually in recognition of an individual or an organisation considered to have made an outstanding contribution to the secular cause.

This year's prize will be presented on Saturday 28 March at a lunch event in central London.

Tickets for the event are on sale now online at £40 for NSS members (£50 for non-members) which includes a three course lunch with a welcome cocktail on arrival. Tickets can also be purchased by sending a cheque payable to National Secular Society to 25 Red Lion Square, London, WC1R 4RL.

Previous years' events have all sold out, so please don't delay if you want to join us for what promises to be another memorable occasion.

Nominations for Secularist of the Year can be submitted here.

Previous winners of Secularist of the Year:

2014 Safak Pavey, for her international work promoting secularism, Human Rights and gender equality as well as humanitarian aid and peace-building – presented by Kerry McCarthy MP, Shadow Foreign Office Minister.

2013 In honour of young human rights activist Malala Yousafzai, the prize was donated to Plan UK, represented by Debbie Langdon-Davies – presented by Michael Cashman MEP.

2012 Peter Tatchell, for his lifelong commitment to the defence of human rights against religious fundamentalism – presented by Nick Cohen.

2011 Sophie in 't Veld MEP, for her work as chair of the European Parliamentary Platform for Secularism in Politics – presented by A. C. Grayling.

2010 The Southall Black Sisters group, for their support of black and Asian women's human rights, accepted by Pragna Patel – presented by Michael Irwin.

2009 Evan Harris MP and Lord Avebury, joint award for their work in the abolition of blasphemy law –presented by Richard Dawkins.

2007 Mina Ahadi, founder of the German Central Council of Ex-Muslims – presented by Joan Smith.

2006 Prof. Steve Jones, biologist at University College London and author of a number of books on evolution –presented by Dick Taverne.

2005 Maryam Namazie, for her work in defence of women's rights and the right to freedom of expression –presented by Polly Toynbee.

Egyptian cleric warns of “new wave of hatred” over Charlie Hebdo cartoon

News | Tue, 13th Jan 2015

The Egyptian Grand Mufti, Shawqi Allam, has strongly criticised Charlie Hebdo's decision to print a new cartoon featuring the Prophet Mohammed. The magazine is printing a new cartoon of Mohammed on the cover of the first issue published since the deadly attack on its Paris office, and it is due to be released tomorrow morning on Wednesday 14 January.

The Grand Mufti has said the planned publication is racist, and that the cartoon would incite racial hatred and upset Muslims all over the word, according to Reuters.

In a statement, the cleric warned of a "new wave of hatred" in French society and "Western society in general" if Charlie Hebdo goes ahead with publishing a new caricature of Mohammed.

The religious leader said, "what the magazine is doing does not serve coexistence or a dialogue between civilizations."

As Grand Mufti, Allam is one of the foremost clerics in the region, with considerable influence over Muslim opinion. He has branded the planned front page an "unwarranted provocation against the feelings of … Muslims around the world."

Allam also said that the magazine was trying to create "religious strife" and "deepen hatred."

Charlie Hebdo has drastically increased its print-run, which will consist of almost 3 million copies, compared to a usual circulation of around 60,000.

The Grand Mufti is not alone among Muslim leaders in criticising Charlie Hebdo or the Western world's reaction to the attack.

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Monday 12 that the "West's hypocrisy is obvious." President Erdogan, who has moved Turkey away from its secular roots and embraced an increasingly political form of Islam, said that "as Muslims we never stood up for terrorism. We never stood up for massacres." Erdogan said that the West was hypocritical because it did not denounce anti-Muslim attacks in France.

Erdogan said "racism" and "Islamophobia" were to blame for attacks on mosques and described anti-Muslim violence as "provocations."

Car park charges “threaten” Christians, according to church leaders

News | Wed, 14th Jan 2015

Christian groups have responded angrily to plans by Edinburgh Council to abolish free parking on Sunday mornings. Council leaders however, have insisted that Edinburgh is a "secular city" and that churches can't get "special treatment on parking."

Free parking was previously capped at two hours on Sundays, with fines only coming into force after 1pm, in part because churches were said to be "very unhappy" about their parishioners having to pay for tickets.

City planners now intend to abolish free parking on Sundays altogether, in order to increase the turnover of spaces and the number of customers for local businesses.

Churches have strongly criticised the planned move, with Paul Rees, the senior pastor at Charlotte Chapel, and Derek Lamont, Free Church minister of St Columba's Church, arguing that the abolition of free parking would decrease attendance at church services and would "threaten" Edinburgh Christians.

Pastor Rees, in a meeting with councillors responsible for the planned change in policy, said that the church's charity work in the community would be undermined if Christian worshippers had to pay to park their cars.

Rees said: "Having vital living congregations in the city centre is not only an important factor in maintaining the historic architecture of this city but it also nurtures and supports society.

"I think all this will be threatened by imposing Sunday parking charges."

According to Edinburgh Evening News, Pastor Rees said it would be "unreasonable" to expect families with children to use public transport to attend church, and that people attending from outside the city would "struggle" to pay for parking.

Rees added: "Parking costs for many of them for three or four hours would be prohibitive, and would have a damaging effect on our city centre churches.

"At the moment there is still a different character to Sunday that adds a different dimension to our life in this city, and I think it would be undermined by treating it as just another day of the week."

However, councillors are said to feel that maintaining free Sunday parking because of a single religious group may be contrary to the 2010 Equality Act.

Councillor Adam McVey, speaking to church leaders, said: "it's worth mentioning that we're a secular city."

Stephen Evans of the National Secular Society said: "There's no reasonable justification for exempting religious worshippers from paying car park fees that everyone else has to pay. It seems only right that there is one set of rules for all.

"If a local authority was to make allowances for those carrying out charitable work, then fine, but those exemptions should apply to those actually doing charitable work, not worshippers. Religious leaders can't expect special treatment for their congregations just because they deem their activities to be more worthy than everyone else's."

In 2013 Woking Borough Council in England revised its policy that granted car parking exemptions to religious groups after the National Secular Society argued that it amounted to discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief.

Court judgement raises questions about FGM and male circumcision in the UK

News | Thu, 15th Jan 2015

A senior judge has decried the lack of medical experts in the UK with knowledge of female genital mutilation (FGM), particularly in young children.

In a ruling on a child thought by Leeds city council to have been a victim of FGM, the judge, Sir James Munby, described the practice as "evil" and said that "the court must not hesitate to use every weapon in its protective arsenal if faced with a case of actual or anticipated FGM."

Sir James added: "Given what we now know is the distressingly great prevalence of FGM in this country even today, some thirty years after FGM was first criminalised, it is sobering to reflect that this is not merely the first care case where FGM has featured but also, I suspect, if not the first one of only a handful of FGM cases that have yet found their way to the family courts.

"The courts alone, whether the family courts or the criminal courts, cannot eradicate this great evil but they have an important role to play and a very much greater role than they have hitherto been able to play."

The judge said that FGM was "an abuse of human rights" that had "no basis in any religion."

In his ruling, Sir James sought to distinguish between the severity of different types of female genital mutilation as compared with male circumcision. The judge described the "curiosity" of the law allowing male circumcision whilst it outlaws FGM. Sir James said that law is "still prepared to tolerate non-therapeutic male circumcision performed for religious or even for purely cultural or conventional reasons, while no longer being willing to tolerate FGM in any of its forms."

The case Sir James was considering concerned the adoption of two children of Muslim parents, named only as G and B.

Difficulties with expert testimony made it hard to determine if the girl had been the victim of female genital mutilation or not, and there was extensive discussion in the ruling over what type of FGM the child may have been subjected to.

Considering whether G had suffered Type IV FGM, defined by the World Health Organization as "all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization," Sir James found that if "FGM Type IV amounts to significant harm, as in my judgment it does, then the same must be so of male circumcision."

Despite finding that some Type IV FGM was comparable with male circumcision, the judge ruled that "'reasonable' parenting is treated as permitting male circumcision", in part because "male circumcision is often performed for religious reasons" whilst "FGM has no basis in any religion." The judge noted that male circumcision was seen by some as "providing hygienic or prophylactic benefits" though accepted that "opinions are divided."

The judge concluded that although "both involve significant harm, there is a very clear distinction in family law between FGM and male circumcision."

Prior to a change in the case pressed by the local authority, the children's case would have depended upon G's Type IV FGM, despite the fact that "on any objective view it might be thought that G would have had subjected to a process much less invasive, no more traumatic (if, indeed, as traumatic) and with no greater long-term consequences, whether physical, emotional or psychological, than the process to which B has been or will be subjected."

Much discussion in court centred over whether G had a small scar on her genitals or not, which led Sir James to discuss the relative severity of this variety of Type IV female genital mutilation and male circumcision.

Making suggestions for the future, Sir James drew attention to a "dearth of medical experts" in paediatric FGM and noted the importance of "knowledge and understanding of the classification and categorisation of the various types of FGM."

Evangelical church banned from Swansea University, after “cult” recruitment fears

News | Mon, 12th Jan 2015

The Freedom Church, an affiliate of Evangelical Alliance, has been banned from the campus of Swansea University after allegations that it was using "aggressive" recruitment strategies which targeted first year students.

According to Swansea student newspaper Waterfront, one parent feared that their child, a student at Swansea University, had been "inducted into a cult."

A campus spokesman said that "concerns have been raised by various organisations and individuals in Wales and elsewhere about the operational methods used by the Freedom Church to recruit members by targeting vulnerable members of society and their cultic style of operation.

"When information came to light that the Freedom Church was holding religious services on campus, permission for the use of any of its premises was immediately withdrawn.

"Only affiliated faith organisations are permitted to hold services on the campus."

The group is allegedly banned at Cardiff University, over similar fears about its activities. The group denies the accusations, and the Evangelical Alliance said that: "Freedom Church has demonstrated exemplary commitment to serving in areas of social concern and throughout its history has also exhibited an enduring commitment to mainstream evangelical Christian beliefs and practices as is required of members of the Evangelical Alliance."

The Director of Swansea University's Student Services, Kevin Child, said that "students that have been associated with The Freedom Church, bright young individuals who have been taken in, have been damaged when they realise how they've been indoctrinated."

Mr Child added that students felt deceived and disappointed when they realised that they had been "indoctrinated" by the church. Child said that a "big part" of the Freedom Church involves "campaigning to convert others", and that believers who leave the church feel "bereft having lost what felt like their family and friends."

One former member of the church said that the organisations was "desperately trying to dictate" members' personal lives. Concerns were also raised about the exorbitant prices charged by the church for members to gain promotion in the church leadership.

The church is currently offering two days of "Academy teaching" for students, "at a cost of £1,200 per student" and also offers a "worship stream and a Zeal stream (for training to lead young people), each costing £750 for the year."

Mr Child added that "the fact that they seem to target young and reasonably wealthy people rather than just anyone causes concern."