Newsline 17 February 2017

Newsline 17 February 2017

As the established church continues to tear itself apart over the issue of homosexuality, it's remarkable to think that this is an organisation responsible for educating around 1 million children in our publicly funded schools and stymying progress on necessary reform of religious education. Even worse is that in many areas, parents have little choice other than to send their child to a church school.

The National Secular Society works tirelessly to oppose faith schools and promote a vision of inclusive secular education. We can only do this with your support. If you haven't already joined us, why not become a member of the NSS today?

Secularist of the Year 2017

It's just over 4 weeks to go till Secularist of the Year 2017, our annual awards social and lunch. This year's awards are on Saturday 18th March in a new central London venue. It's a great chance to meet other members, supporters and special guests from around the country.

Next week members will receive an exclusive announcement of the shortlist - six inspiring secularists working on a range of campaigns - all worthy winners. Members also benefit from tickets discounted to just £40, so if you're not already a member why not join today?

To find out more, and book your tickets visit secularism.org.uk/soty2017

News, Blogs & Opinion

Success! Gwynedd Council rethinks plan to impose church school on community

News | Tue, 14th Feb 2017

Plans for a new 'super school' in Bala to have a religious designation have been shelved following widespread opposition to the proposal.

In January the National Secular Society wrote to Gwynedd Council, urging it to protect community school provision and respect the wishes of non-religious parents.

At a meeting of Gwynedd Council's Cabinet on Tuesday the decision was made to restart the consultation process with the governing bodies of local schools over abandoning the proposal to establish a Church in Wales school in the town of Bala.

The decision to rethink the religious status of the school follows strong local opposition from councillors, parents and governors of existing schools that would be closed to make way for the new school.

In a report to Gwynedd Council's Cabinet ahead of the meeting it was made clear that the Actions of the Church in Wales during the consultation process has led to a "lack of confidence" in the partnership between the Diocese and the Governing Bodies. The report cited unease amongst Governors and Local Members that the Church was "mainly motivated by safeguarding the interests of Church resources".

A majority of governors at one local school, Ysgol Y Berwyn, refused to support any governing body established if it serves a church school and called on the Council to "review the status of the new school with the desire to have a community school that is not formally connected to any specific religious body."

Speaking at the meeting, Councillor Gareth Thomas said a "loss of trust between church and community" represented a substantial change that meant the Council needed to rethink their plans.

Gwynedd Council chairman and Bala Cllr Dilwyn Morgan welcomed the Council's decision.

"I cannot of course preempt the outcome of that consultation but considering a petition of 1,022 was organised asking for a new consultation then hopefully the voice of the community will be loud enough."

"Hopefully now we can make the education of our children a priority", he said.

Cllr Morgan had previously called on Church in Wales to "step back gracefully" and allow a new school to have a community status rather than be given any religious status.

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns director, commented. "Schools are at the centre of our communities and it's totally inappropriate to impose church schools, paid for from public funds, on communities that don't want them. We hope Gwynedd will now move forward with a truly inclusive community school that everyone can get behind, irrespective of their religious outlook.

"In this day and age religious schools simply aren't able to serve religiously diverse and increasing non-religious local communities."

Stop pharmacies refusing prescriptions for emergency contraception on religious grounds

Opinion | Fri, 17th Feb 2017

With the regulator considering curtailing 'conscience' objections to contraception prescriptions, Keith Porteous Wood urges supporters to respond to the consultation in the interests of vulnerable patients.

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has launched a consultation on "religion, personal values and beliefs in pharmacy practice" which focuses on the extent to which 'conscience' opt-outs to pharmacists should be permitted. This principally relates to opt-outs on religious grounds over Emergency Hormonal Contraception, which some pharmacists with orthodox religious beliefs consider impermissible. The GPhC is seeking to establish what balance should be struck between, on the one hand, pharmacists' freedom of conscience, and on the other the safety and care of patients - particularly those whose philosophical perspectives do not rule out EHC.

The deadline for responses is 7 March 2017.

The proposals in this consultation would, in the GPhC's view, "change the expectations of pharmacy professionals when their religion, personal values or beliefs might, in certain circumstances, impact on their ability to provide services, and shift the balance in favour of the needs and rights of the person in their care."

This consultation follows on the heels of one in 2016 into "Standards for pharmacy professionals", stating as a standard that Pharmacy professionals must provide person-centred care". The accompanying 2016 draft guidance potentially conflicted with this: "a pharmacy professional's personal values and beliefs must be balanced with the care they give people who use pharmacy services."

The GPhC acknowledges the latest consultation was "prompted by feedback" from the 2016 consultation "and reflect[s] the relevant legal framework of human rights and equality law". We commend the GPhC for its responsiveness and tackling this contentious issue, so important to patient care.

The Secular Medical Forum (SMF) within the NSS responded to the first consultation, drawing attention to the above conflict. As the consultation was closing, we drew the GPhC's attention to supportive case law that had just arisen involving the US Supreme Court. Unrelated to this case, an NSS member needing EHC when travelling in the US had earlier complained of having been refused it in several urban pharmacies.

Over the last decade, the NSS has raised concerns, both in consultations and in response to particular cases which arose, about the seemingly growing incidence of 'conscience' based refusals in the UK to dispense EHC.

The US appeals court supportive decision in this case was Stormans Inc. v. Wiesman (Wiesman acting for the state) made final by the Supreme Court's refusal to take the case. It concluded that the state (whose regulations were being challenged) had a "legitimate interest in ensuring that its citizens have safe and timely access to their lawful and lawfully prescribed medications". The court concluded that religious freedom had been adequately catered for as the regulations permitted a "religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny delivery", however this was subject to "another pharmacist working for the pharmacy provid[ing] timely delivery".

It follows that, to the extent that a pharmacist is unwilling to dispense EHC even when there is no one else willing to do so in the pharmacy, they would need to work somewhere where this could never arise.

Needless to say, the decision enraged evangelical organisations there. And similarly, the timely move by the new regulator, the GPhC, is provoking a fierce reaction in some religious quarters.

The secularist position, proposed by the NSS and SMF, is similar to what is proposed by the GPhC and endorsed by the US courts. All support conscience opt-outs, provided the patient is not disadvantaged.

Currently, pharmacies refusing to dispense are obliged to refer patients to another pharmacy. We have evidence that the obligatory referral does not always happen. As there is not even any documentation required to evidence refusal, checking whether referral is always offered is currently impossible, and this puts patients at an unnecessarily increased risk.

Even where a referral is made, there is no guarantee that the referred pharmacist will have the EHC in stock and will be prepared to dispense it; or that the referred pharmacy is open and sufficiently nearby for the patient to reach. Given the emergency nature of many requests and that patients may not have the requisite confidence, time, money or access to necessary transport, this refusal could directly result in great distress and possibly an unwanted pregnancy. The referring pharmacist has no obligation even to enquire into such key practical potential obstacles.

Good medical practice would dictate that a prescription presented for EHC has resulted from a consultation with the patient whose medical and social background the GP will know or will have ascertained and that a suitable examination and informed discussion will have taken place; a pharmacist objecting to dispensing the prescription is unlikely to know all this information. In such cases it is especially egregious that the patient's prescription should be overridden by a pharmacist on 'conscience' grounds. The GP may have made the decision which could in some - admittedly extreme - circumstances be based on an assessment of potentially dire consequences of conception, possibly even fatal ones. This could, for example, be if the patient was medically unfit to bear a child or even that she could be subject to "honour"-based, and potentially life-threatening, violence.

GP waiting lists are getting longer and patients seeking EHC may not be able to see their GP in time, and the Government has made known its wish that pharmacists take on more to lighten the work burden of GPs. So we hope the GPhC will also find ways of ensuring that the growing proportion of those without prescriptions seeking EHC are protected from the potentially adverse consequences where the exercise of pharmacists' conscience relates to an over-the-counter sale.

For opponents, keen to be portrayed as victims, patient care doesn't seem as high on their priorities as the exercise of their own conscience. One has only to read their consultation responses to see the absence of the patient in their discussions.

The response to the earlier consultation from Christians in Pharmacy implies Christian pharmacists are "pro-life", and therefore opposed in principle to EHC to the extent of being "unable" to handle EHC. While some Christian pharmacists no doubt do hold such extreme anti-choice views, it would seem very surprising if all do.

While the GPhC is proposing moving towards greater consideration of patient care, Christians in Pharmacy's direction of travel is resolutely in the opposite direction: scrapping even the, albeit unsatisfactory, obligation to refer. They contend that "the strongly held moral convictions of the pharmacy practitioner may prevent them, in good conscience, from actively recommending another source of supply … without themselves making a direct referral." [their emphasis]

Of equal concern, they want the default position to be exercising conscience, with those not wishing to do so to "opt in". Furthermore, they even want the conscience clause that applies in law to direct involvement with abortion extended to the very different situation of dispensing EHC, even where this is prescribed.

The Conservative Home website has hosted a blog on this issue taking a similar line to the Christians in Pharmacy, justifying its call for a statutory abortion opt out by explicitly describing the morning after pill as an "abortifacient", which it isn't.

Christians in Pharmacy paints religious pharmacists as victims, rather than those denied their services. The Conservative Home blog takes this questionable victimhood to new depths, inexplicably claiming the proposal "raises the threat of criminal [my emphasis] sanctions for those who do exercise such a conscientious objection" and concluding that it is "hard to see how any person with traditional faith views on abortion could in future enter the profession, and it is only a matter of time before such careers are closed down as options for those who hold such views".

Chillingly, the Conservative Home blog concludes that "it is perhaps time our Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, called in [the GPhC Chair], Nigel Clarke, for a chat over a coffee to discuss what possible public policy objectives would be served by denying the right of conscientious objection to those of faith in the pharmacy profession."

The Christian lobbying group CARE has gone even further in its response. It considers that if the proposed regulations come into force, pharmacists will be faced with some "impossible choices", one of which is "to work with another pharmacist who may not share their views". This implies that the pharmacies they want to work in are not welcome to pharmacists who are prepared to dispense EHC. Even if the pharmacy happens to be the only one for miles around, they want to deny choice to all patients to receive EHC. If CARE's briefing accurately demonstrates the attitude of a significant number of pharmacists to their work, it is a compelling argument for, rather than against, the GPhC changing the regulations in the way they are contemplating.

Further, CARE consider the regulations would impinge on pharmacists "living out their faith privately" "undermining their … freedom of religion".

The changes proposed do not adversely impact on (the qualified right of) manifestation of religion. Pharmacists will remain free not to use EHC themselves or to argue against others doing so, but pharmacies would not free to prevent others doing so by refusing to dispense prescriptions.

And CARE want this closed shop even to extend to customers. Their most far-fetched objection is to complain that customers would be unable to "access a service provider who either shares his or her values or at least has the option of doing so". This is just a whisker short of suggesting that customers are entitled to pharmacies staffed by people who are not just religious but orthodox in their views. That should keep the equality lawyers in business for some time.

These self-serving arguments show scant regard for patients and I urge those who care about vulnerable women being denied EHC to respond positively to the consultation by 7 March at the latest.

Pupils should have the same entitlement to religion and belief education - NSS tells RE Commission

News | Mon, 13th Feb 2017

Every pupil should have the same basic entitlement to non-partisan education about religion and belief, the National Secular Society has said in a submission to the Commission on Religious Education.

The Society said that significant reform of RE was needed to make sure learning about religion and belief covered a "broad spectrum of human ideas and thought", including religious and non-religious worldviews.

The Commission, established by the RE Council of England and Wales, is reviewing the "the legal, education, and policy frameworks for religious education" with the "ultimate aim … to improve the quality and rigour of religious education and its capacity to prepare pupils for life in modern Britain."

In its response, the NSS criticised existing arrangements which means local faith groups determine the content of RE, calling this approach "arbitrary and unfair".

The NSS submission said the content of any subject covering religion and belief should be determined by the same process as other subjects, reasoning that there was "no educational or social rationale" for the subject to uniquely 'reflect local circumstances'.

The NSS also criticised the special arrangements for faith schools' which allows them to teach the subject form their own perspective, saying this undermined the academic integrity of the subject. "All pupils, regardless of the school they attend, should have the same entitlement to learn about religion, beliefs and philosophy in an impartial way", said the submission, which also called for all schools, including faith schools to "have their religious education teaching inspected by Ofsted, and not by inspectors appointed by their governing bodies in consultation with 'religious authorities', as is current the case."

Parents are currently able to withdraw their child from religious education, a right the National Secular Society supports while the subject is taught unevenly across the country, with locally-agreed syllabuses and in an often confessional manner.

But, if the subject is "suitably reformed" to become a "truly impartial, objective and balanced academic subject, then the parental right of withdrawal could be reviewed," the NSS submission said.

The submission called for these points to be emphasised in teacher training, so that no teacher "should leave training thinking it is ever appropriate for them to teach or promote their own religious beliefs to children."

RE is often taught by non-specialists and given a low priority, creating "an ideal environment for evangelical groups to exploit", the NSS warned.

Stephen Evans, campaigns director of the National Secular Society said, "This area of learning should no longer be unduly influenced by religious groups and vested interests, as has traditionally been the case"

"Britain today has incredible religious diversity but is also less religious than it has ever been. Our education system should reflect that, so pupils leave school equipped to understand religious and non-religious points of view. But that can only happen when RE stops being used by some as an opportunity to evangelise. A proselytising approach to religious education robs children of the impartial, balanced curriculum they deserve."

NSS welcomes “common sense” ruling on time off work for five week religious holiday

News | Thu, 16th Feb 2017

An employment tribunal has found that London Underground did not discriminate against an employee by denying him five weeks off work to attend religious festivals.

The case arose after Mr Gareddu, a Roman Catholic, requested five weeks leave during the summer holidays to visit family and attend religious festivals in his native Sardinia – claiming that "every [festival] is dear to him" and "had a deep religious significance".

In previous years London Underground had been able to accommodate Mr Gareddu's requests. However in 2013 his new line manager made clear that the arrangement would have to end from 2014, in accordance with their policy that blocks of consecutive leave of more than three weeks could only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. Mr Gareddu was told by his line manager that he was "not the only member of staff who has family commitments during the summer holiday" and that they had "to be fair and equal with all the staff".

Mr Gareddu raised an internal grievance which was rejected by the HR department, and following an appeal claimed indirect religious discrimination and a breach of his rights to manifest his religion or belief at an employment tribunal. The case was heard in November 2016.

The tribunal accepted that the practice of not granting more than three weeks consecutive annual leave might disproportionately affect employees whose religion 'required' them to attend specific festivals, and that there was a sufficient link between attending such festivals and the manifestation of religious belief. However the tribunal found that Mr Gareddu's motive for wanting the time off was for family/personal reasons.

Commenting on the case, Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns director, said that even if the tribunal had found that Mr Gareddu's request for leave was for religious reasons, it wouldn't have been automatically accommodated.

"Employers have a responsibility to respect their employees' rights to manifest their religion or belief. However they also have to ensure that such manifestations do not place an unfair burden on other staff or the business."

An employer's guide to religion or belief in the workplace published in November 2016 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission makes clear that "a rule or policy that has an indirectly discriminatory effect is not unlawful if it is objectively justified".

Alongside the guidance the EHRC published a major review of the legal framework around religion and belief in the workplace which found examples of employees "being refused time off work for religious holidays" as well as "feeling overburdened with work due to colleagues taking religious holidays". The report found no evidence that an "additional duty of reasonable accommodation is required" – something the NSS warned could lead to religious claims being privileged over other rights.

Mr Evans added: "This ruling shows that Britain's equality laws are getting the balance broadly right. As the EHRC guidance makes clear, employers don't need to be 'experts in religion or belief' in order to take a fair common sense approach."

EHRC guidance on time off work for reasons of religion or belief is available here.

See also: Frank Cranmer, (No) time off for religious observance: Gareddu v London Underground Ltd" in Law & Religion UK

43% of universities restrict speech that might “offend” religious people

News | Mon, 13th Feb 2017

University administrations are becoming increasingly "censorious", with 43% of universities censoring speech that might "offend" religious people, according to online magazine Spiked.

The magazine's Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) claims that 63.5% of UK universities "actively censor speech".

Launching its third annual analysis of campus censorship, Spiked said: "The fight for the freedom to criticise religion, to blaspheme, was at the very heart of the historic fight for free speech. Yet it seems some universities, terrified of offending students of faith, are turning the clock back."

It highlighted London South Bank University's Code of Practice for Freedom of Speech, which warns students that one definition of an 'unlawful meeting' is one "at which there is a likelihood that the speaker(s) may… commit blasphemy". In 2014 the University removed posters from their student atheist society for being "religiously offensive". Following criticism the University removed the policy with a version that did not mention blasphemy, the document was hosted at the same address and gave no indication of when it was issued.

Warwick University's Student Union Policy is also criticised for stating that speakers 'must seek to avoid insulting other faiths or groups'. In 2015 the University's student union barred Iranian-born secularist and human rights activist Maryam Namazie from speaking, claiming she was "highly inflammatory and could incite hatred" if allowed to take up secularist society invitation.

Nottingham University's Student Union policy on "respecting religion" opposes "provocative" organisations and "certain groups with known antireligious views".

The report does not include restrictions on illegal speech such as incitement to violence or to racial or religious hatred, but does include policies aimed at stopping "offensive" speech. Many examples in the rankings were repeated due to universities adopting similar model policies, for example dozens of policies use the ill-defined language of avoiding "needlessly offensive" language.

The FSUR looks at the policies and actions of universities and students' unions ranking them using a traffic light system. The report is sponsored by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and Academics For Academic Freedom.

Speaking to the Independent, free speech campaigner and NSS honorary associate Peter Tatchell said "Universities used to be bastions of free speech and open debate. As this report shows, they are increasingly hedging free speech with all kinds of qualifications, making it no longer free."

While defending Universities rights to ban "Islamist and far right speakers who endorse violence against women and minorities", Mr Tatchell said that free speech restrictions were being used to target legitimate groups due to "religious pressure".

However, Malia Bouattia, President of the National Union of Students, criticised the findings as "flawed" and "absurd".

She said: "No Platform and Safe Space policies create an environment where students and staff are free from harassment and fear" and pointed to some of the ranking's criteria including legitimate anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.

In the cases of the University of Bedfordshire (policy) and the University of Chichester policies preventing staff from engaging in proselytisation at work were presented as censorship of students.

National Secular Society campaigns director Stephen Evans said: "While flawed in places, the report provides useful tool for taking the temperature of free speech on university campuses. Although often well meaning, it's clear that censorious policies intended to 'avoid insulting other faiths or groups', are open to misuse, particularly by those who feel religious ideas should be shielded from criticism.

"The right to freedom of expression is crucial in a democracy and we hope this report sparks a positive debate on how universities can best meet their legal obligation to promote and facilitate academic freedom and freedom of speech."

You can read the full results of the Free Speech University Rankings 2017 here.

*This story was updated to include London South Bank's revised policy and to correct a mistaken reference to the University of Chester, which should have referred to the University of Chichester