Becoming a member of the National Secular Society is a declaration of your belief in fairness, freedom and human rights. Please commit to your principles by adding your voice to the call for a secular society. If you're already a member and pay an annual subscription (rather than by standing order), this is now due. Click here to join or renew.
News, Blogs & Opinion
NSS welcomes European Court of Human Rights ruling on 'religious discrimination' casesNews | Tue, 15th Jan 2013 The European Court of Human Rights has rejected three of the four landmark cases of alleged religious discrimination in the workplace. It upheld one case, Eweida v. the United Kingdom, in which Nadia Eweida claimed that uniform policy violated her human rights as a Christian. In this instance the court ruled that her employer, British Airways, failed to correctly balance her right to manifest her religion with their right to project a corporate image. In all four cases Christian applicants complained that UK law did not sufficiently protect their rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination at work. The ruling, while protecting the right to manifest religion at work, makes clear that these rights must be balanced against rights of others. The National Secular Society was the only organisation that intervened to support the UK Government (pdf) to argue that all four cases of Eweida, Chaplin, Ladele and McFarlane were correctly dismissed by the UK courts. The European Court of Human Rights has today largely upheld those decisions. Reacting to the landmark ruling, Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: "First and foremost, this ruling demonstrates that UK equality law is fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and that there is no need to change UK law. Any attempt to do so by the Government would therefore signal a clear desire to give privileged treatment to religious believers, and would be robustly challenged. "In the cases of the registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships and the counsellor who wouldn't counsel gay couples – the principle of non-discrimination against gay people has been upheld. If they had won these cases, it would have driven a coach and horses through the equality laws. The rights of gay people to fair and equal treatment would have been kicked back by decades. "It is always better if employers can reach some kind of accommodation with their staff on these issues, and in the vast majority of cases, they do. But when employees refuse to carry out the duties that their job entails, it is reasonable for employers to discipline them. Religious people who feel elements of their job go against their conscience can always find employment that better matches their needs. That is true religious freedom. "In the case of Eweida, it is a very limited victory which simply means that if employers want to prevent an employee wearing religious symbol for corporate image purposes, they must prove that their image is negatively affected by such manifestations of belief. In the case of Chaplin we are pleased that the court has acknowledged that employers are better placed than the court to decide if jewellery is a health and safety risk and did not support the idea of blanket permission to wear religious symbols in the workplace." Read the ruling in full: Also read this blog, by Darren Newman, which reinforces our contention that these supposed "religious discrimination" cases are being created and manipulated by evangelical groups and individuals in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and politicians. Watch Keith Porteous Wood explaining why the NSS intervened in all four cases See also: Ruling on Christian's right to wear cross 'does not trump other human rights' | |
“Religious discrimination” cases – the European Court’s judgements change very littleOpinion | Wed, 16th Jan 2013 Ronan McCrea, a barrister who helped prepare the National Secular Society's intervention, explains why this week's ECHR ruling does very little to change the rights of believers in the workplace. The recent judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the landmark case of Eweida and Others v United Kingdom was billed as the most significant case on freedom of conscience and religion in many years. It was largely satisfactory from the point of view of the National Secular Society. The Court rejected the claims of three of the four claimants. Gratifyingly, it did so on the basis of the two core arguments made in the intervention made by the Society in this case. In relation to the cases of Ladele and MacFarlane where the applicants sought an exemption from having to comply with a policy of non-discrimination on sexual orientation, the Court backed our central argument that discrimination law is not merely about protecting service provision but also aims to protect the dignity and equal citizenship of gay and lesbian individuals. It therefore concluded that a failure to grant a "conscience exemption" from these norms was legitimate. Indeed in paragraph 78 of the judgement, the Court specifically cited the National Secular Society's submissions which had noted how the British parliament had given detailed consideration to the question of conscience exemptions before concluding that such a provision should not be included. The Court's decision in favour of Ms. Eweida was seen as having a "whiff of tokenism" by Adam Wagner and as politically shrewd by Joshua Rozenberg, two leading legal commentators and it certainly was a rather narrow, factually-specific win which is unlikely to have a wide impact. Others, including the dissenting judgement of Sir Nicholas Bratza the UK judge in the case, criticised the majority decision for micro-managing these cases to an inappropriate degree. It does seem remarkable that British Airways, which offered to investigate Ms. Eweida's complaint, offered her a uniform free non-customer facing role for the duration of the investigation, changed its uniform policy to allow her to wear the cross and allowed her to return to her old job was held to have violated Article 9 rights. The Court seems to have felt that the failure to immediately allow her to wear the cross amounted to some sort of violation. It also cited the fact that the company later changed its policy as a reason to find a violation arguing that this meant the original prohibition was not justified. Such an approach may prove impossible to operate in practice. Employers are surely entitled to take time to consider requests for changes to staff uniforms. If subsequently altering uniforms can be used against employers as it was in the Eweida decision then employers may fear making reasonable accommodations when requested. All in all Ms. Eweida may well have been entitled to wear her cross. After all her employer permitted workers to wear turbans and hijabs. However, BA adapted its uniform policy to allow her to do this quite quickly and was very accommodating towards her in the interim. The facts of this case were carefully examined by the UK courts which carefully balanced the rights in question and found no violation. In reaching its decision, the Strasbourg Court seems not to have respected its declared policy of allowing Member States a margin of appreciation in these matters. Dr Ronan McCrea is a barrister and lecturer in the Faculty of Laws at University College London. He is the author of Religion and the Public Order of the European Union (Oxford University Press, 2010). Dr McCrea assisted the NSS with its submission (pdf) to the European Court of Human Rights. Read his blog on these cases on the website of the UK Constitutional Law Group. See also: No change in the law needed after European verdicts, says lawyer | |
Victory for free speech as Government accepts reform of section 5News | Mon, 14th Jan 2013 In a major victory for freedom of expression, Home Secretary Theresa May has bowed to the inevitable and agreed to accept a House of Lords amendment removing the word "insulting " from Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5 has a low prosecution threshold and there have been prosecutions for ridiculously trivial remarks made in public. Speaking during the 2nd reading of the Crime and Courts Bill, the Home Secretary backed down and accepted, on the basis of information from the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the word insulting should be removed. The DPP had advised her that all recent prosecutions could also have been made using the "abusive" provision, which still remains as part of Section 5. The Home Secretary's decision to accept the Lords' amendment may well have been influenced by the routing of the Government in the upper House when the matter was debated in December. Peers voted for the removal of "insulting", by 150 votes to 54, despite opposition from the Conservative and Labour frontbenches. It was the lowest pro-government vote in this Parliament. This followed intense lobbying by the Reform Section 5 campaign led by the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society. Major supporters included Rowan Atkinson and Peter Tatchell. Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, who has been active in the campaign to make this change, said: "We congratulate the Home Secretary for removing a much-abused catch-all provision where the police could seemingly arrest and charge anyone that irritated them for using trivial or mocking words. The police did not even need to identify the victim that allegedly had been insulted, leaving the whole thing open to misuse. This is a welcome victory for freedom of expression. "One such 'insult' was a student telling a policeman his horse was gay, and another student's banner claiming 'Scientology is a dangerous cult'. The change should also prevent street evangelists preaching against homosexuality being arrested and charged. We've said all along that free speech is not free unless it is for everyone – even those we don't agree with." The campaign had the effect of bringing together under one umbrella the unlikely partnership of The National Secular Society and the Christian Institute. Keith Porteous Wood said: "As secularists we are not anti-religious and we will work with Christians or any other religious group when our aims are in accord." See also: How a pantomime horse helped secure Section 5 victory | |
Roundup of reactions to this week’s Euro Court rulingsOpinion | Wed, 16th Jan 2013 By Terry Sanderson This week's European Court of Human Rights judgements on the so-called "religious discrimination" cases have brought to a head the long-running battle being fought by evangelical Christians to give their faith special recognition and special privileges. Of course, they also provided the Prime Minister an opportunity to try to placate the evangelical anger at his Government for arguing at the ECtHR that the British courts had been right to reject Nadia Eweida's claims. Mr Cameron tweeted that "Delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld – people shouldn't suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs." Has he not noticed that hundreds of thousands of people wear crosses every day at work without a problem, and that discrimination on grounds of religion or belief has been illegal for years? Cameron must have breathed a sigh of relief that at least one of the cases was upheld – despite the Government arguing to the Court that it should not have been. If all the cases had been lost, he would have been in big trouble not only from the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey and his mob, but from his own pious backbenchers who are already fulminating over his gay marriage plans. But so successful has been the propaganda campaign conducted by the Christian lobby groups on these cases that they are now irrecoverably shrouded in a fog of confusion and misinformation. This was reflected in the reaction of the British press, which decided to all but ignore the three key cases that were upheld and play up the one small victory obtained by Nadia Eweida, to give the impression that something significant has changed. It hasn't. Perhaps the most egregious of these newspaper headlines took up the whole front page of the London Evening Standard on Tuesday: "Workers win the right to wear a cross" – as though there was ever a time when workers didn't have a right to wear a cross. Nor did the paper mention that the "right to wear a cross" at work is still not absolute. The Daily Telegraph — which has, of course, been one of the chief allies of the evangelical groups in spreading their exaggerations and misinformation — continued its silly campaign with hysterical claims that the cases dismissed by the Court meant that Christians are now "legally excluded from certain jobs". An article in the paper quoted solicitor Paul Lambdin, a partner at Stevens & Bolton, who said: "It appears that those Christians, Muslims and others who disagree with same sex marriage and/or civil partnerships will be excluded from certain jobs. These cases demonstrate the difficulty of divorcing a belief from its practice. The practical effect is that Miss Ladele, Mr McFarlane and others with similar religious convictions may be lawfully excluded from certain jobs." Of course, no-one can be "excluded" from a job on the basis of their religion alone. The equality law that they despise so much specifically protects Christians from such prejudiced treatment. It would have been much more accurate for him to write "some Christians will exclude themselves from taking such jobs because they don't want to carry out all of the duties involved", but that would have contradicted the victim narrative the Telegraph has so assiduously fostered. Ironically, the only people who can be "lawfully excluded" from jobs are those who want to work in an organisation with a religious ethos (such as a state-funded "faith school") and don't happen to be of the 'right' religion. Christians won't hesitate to keep out those they don't approve of. Other papers were rather more even-handed. In the Independent, Jerome Taylor wrote:
The Eweida "victory" (which blogger Adam Wagner referred to it as "a whiff of tokenism") was almost cancelled out by the rejection of nurse Chaplin's crucifix case on health and safety grounds. Jerome Taylor offered this crumb of comfort to the defeated Christians – but they may find it hard to swallow:
The Guardian quoted Claire Dawson, at the solicitors Slater & Gordon. She said:
The human resources HRZone website thought that although the judgment brought a little more clarity, "new legislation may be still be required to illuminate the situation further." The site quoted Daniel Peyton, an employer law partner at law firm, McGuireWoods, as saying:
On the issues of the conflicting rights of gay people and religious people Mr Peyton said:
But Peyton warned that this scenario meant such decisions would in future be "subjective, making it almost impossible for employers, particularly companies operating in different global jurisdictions, to make an objective decision". As a result, the legislature may be forced to step in with regulations regarding which rights have greater weight in which circumstances, he said. Louise Taft, senior solicitor at law firm, Prolegal, meanwhile, issued a warning note. She said the most important legal point made by the Court was that it no longer appeared necessary for "employees to show anyone else could be disadvantaged by a policy, if their religious convictions mean they cannot comply" (which was why Eweida lost her case in the UK). As a result, Taft warned that the judgement could "significantly widen the pool of potential claimants for discrimination" and was, therefore, a development of which employers "must take careful note". The Guardian carried a piece from lawyer Joshua Rozenberg who drew attention to the opinion of the two dissenting judges — from Montenegro and Malta — in the Ladele case.
Mr Rozenberg pointed out that the main reason Eweida had won her case was that BA had backed down so quickly and changed its uniform policy to accommodate her demands, thereby demonstrating that there had been no significant problem with the uniform policy that couldn't have been accommodated. Rozenberg ultimately thought that the balance had shifted slightly in favour of the Christian activists.
In his analysis of the rulings, Robert Pigott, the BBC's religious affairs correspondent, finished by opining that: "The European Court of Human Rights has left a milestone on the road to a secular society." We hope he is right, but the true significance of these rulings will not be known for some time yet, and they only become binding after three months, or the outcome or refusal of an appeal. Christian Concern is already talking of appealing them to the Grand Chamber of the European Court. The Grand Chamber accepts very few cases for consideration. Let's hope we are not going to have to waste even more time and money on this. Hopefully, too, more sensible Christians will try to put a brake on these extremists who are bringing their faith into disrepute. As Ruth Gledhill, the Times religion correspondent wrote:
In the same newspaper, Alan Wilson, the bishop of Buckingham, took his fellow British Christians to task for their "overblown" claims of persecution. He wrote:
We'll say amen to that. | |
EU Commissioner says blasphemy laws are undesirable in the EU, but it’s up to individual states to decide whether they implement themNews | Thu, 17th Jan 2013 The EU Commissioner responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, Vivianne Reding, has said that blasphemy laws and other such restrictions are not acceptable and pose a threat to free speech. She made her comments in answer to a parliamentary question from Dutch MEP Sophie in 't Veld (who is also an NSS honorary associate) and three others, Joanna Senyszyn, Cornelis de Jong and Marietje Schaake. They asked:
Ms Reding, answering on behalf of the European Commission, said:
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "This seems like a very complacent answer. On the one hand Ms Reding says that the EU can't stop states within the union bringing in and enforcing blasphemy laws, but they are highly undesirable outside the EU. Why does she think the effects on free speech are different in Europe than anywhere else? These laws are misused just as much in European states as they are in Muslim ones." Source: European Parliament; Parliamentary questions; Subject: Blasphemy laws within the European Union | |
January is renewal time for NSS membershipNews | Thu, 17th Jan 2013 January is the month when renewal of NSS membership becomes due. Thanks to everyone who has renewed already for 2013, and that includes those who have Standing Orders - your subscription will be renewed automatically. Also, if you joined after September last year, your membership is good for the rest of this year. Everyone else should renew now, please. You can do it quickly and securely online with your credit or debit card at or if you prefer, you can send a cheque to NSS, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL. The move towards a secular society is reaching a crucial phase, and it is important that we keep up the pressure. The NSS has scored some significant victories over the past year and we've got plenty of exciting plans for the coming twelve months. But we can't do it without our members. You are the NSS. We receive no financial support from anywhere beyond your subscriptions and donations. That is why it is so important that you stick with us over the vital period that's approaching. And why - if you aren't a member already – you should join now. Taking out a standing order makes things easier all round. You can forget about renewing, as it happens automatically – it saves you hassle and it saves us the administration involved in reminding you. If you'd like to take out a standing order, just email us at admin@secularism.org.uk and we'll send you a form. The NSS is your organisation, fighting for the things that matter to you. Please do your bit and join or renew today. Just click here and the whole process takes just a couple of minutes. | |
Government ordered to disclose details of free school applicantsNews | Wed, 16th Jan 2013 A tribunal has ruled that the Department for Education (DfE) must publish the names, location and religious affiliation, if any, of all organisations that apply to open free schools. The Information Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the DfE to a ruling by the Information Commissioner's office that the DfE must publish a list of all proposals to establish Free Schools. Freedom of information requests for the information were made in June 2011 by the Guardian newspaper, the Association of Colleges and the British Humanist Association (BHA). The Government had argued that revealing the identity of unsuccessful applicants could put them off from re-applying or could deter interest from other groups. The Information Tribunal however rejected the Government's argument, which was partly supported by a survey of free school applicants which was described by the tribunal as "fundamentally flawed". Ruling in favour of the Information Commissioner, the tribunal stated:
Stephen Evans, Campaigns Manager at the National Secular Society, said: "We very much welcome this ruling. The free schools programme takes the control of state funded schools out of the hands of the local authority, and in many cases into the hands of churches and religious organisations. It is therefore essential that applications can be scrutinised and their merits debated openly and freely." The Department for Education is now considering whether to submit a further appeal to the Upper Tribunal. | |
Religious opt-outs make Australia’s anti-discrimination law a “bigot’s charter”News | Thu, 17th Jan 2013 In a move that has enraged human rights advocates, the Australian government has given religious groups wide-scale opt-outs in proposed new anti-discrimination laws. The new law brings together all the existing anti-discrimination measures, but the Government has agreed to demands from religious bodies that they should be permitted to be able to discriminate in employment against a wide range of people – including pregnant women. Needless to say, gay people will be left almost entirely at the mercy of religious intolerance with no protection if they are employed by an employer with a religious ethos. The draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill permits "faith-based groups", including schools and hospitals, to refuse to hire people because of a wide range of attributes that would be unlawful for any other organisation. This includes women who are pregnant or potentially pregnant – to avoid having to employ unwed mothers. The Human Rights Law Centre's director of advocacy and strategic litigation, Anna Brown, said that while the bill introduced important new protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and removed the ability of religious bodies to discriminate on the basis of age, sex and breastfeeding, it was a ''missed opportunity'' to narrow the broad exemptions available to religious groups. Religious organisations employ thousands of people in Australia – the Catholic Church being one of the country's largest employers. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference is adamant that the church should retain its rights to discriminate, but Anglicans are divided. They rely on government funding but because of their religious status are allowed to vet the sexual practices of potential employees in ways that would be illegal for non-religious organisations. The Australian breakfast cereal Weet-Bix is made by a company called Sanitarium which defines itself as a religious organisation owned and operated by the Seventh-Day Adventist church, which means it would be able to discriminate against people with these attributes. Sanitarium spokeswoman Julie Praestiin said the company's workplace culture was ''grounded on Christian-based values of care, courage, humility, integrity and passion which are generally shared by the Australian community''. Hugh de Kretser, executive officer of the Federation of Community Legal Centres, said that Sanitarium, which is understood to have a turnover of $300 million a year — although the church is not required to lodge Sanitarium's financial reports — should not be allowed to discriminate. ''That a large organisation with a turnover of $300 million a year is given a green light by the law to discriminate highlights the problems with these exemptions,'' he said. President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, said: ''In a secular society such as Australia … one does not want to give any sort of particular priority to one freedom above the right of people to non-discriminatory employment.'' She said it was important ''that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater'' as the bill was the first step towards creating a coherent federal human rights system. David Nicholls, President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, said, "Repugnant religious bigotry will always be with us; the same cannot be said for governments that openly support it. The Prime Minister is backing a minority view of overly zealous religious leaders and followers and has been advised badly on this matter. "Australia's ever-creeping soft theocracy, which includes the Howard debacle of chaplains in state schools and progressive legislation not enacted or stymied by faith initiatives, has become a matter only controllable by the voter," Nicholls said. "Tasmania removed the ability of religions to discriminate on such grounds about ten years ago," Nicholls stated. "As far as we know, it has not sunk beneath the waves or suffered any inconvenience because of it." See also: Labor's anti-discrimination bill is a bigot's charter | |
European Commission to investigate complaints concerning employment discrimination in ‘faith’ schoolsNews | Thu, 17th Jan 2013 The European Commission is to investigate complaints submitted by the National Secular Society concerning whether UK legislation relating to state funded 'faith' schools breaches European employment laws in relation to discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. The complaints centre on The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (SSFA) and Education Act 2011, and the extent to which they permit discrimination against staff employed in state funded 'faith' schools (in practice, mainly staff not of the religion or denomination promoted by the school). The NSS has long argued that the level of discrimination permitted in 'faith' schools against non-religious teachers and those not of the faith of the school goes beyond that which is permitted by European Directive 2000/78/EC, which establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and the level of discrimination permitted is increased for academies. A complaint filed by the NSS concerning the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 relating to discrimination of staff employed in denominational schools is also being investigated by the EC. This was backed up by an example of a non-practising Catholic teacher unable to secure an appointment at a Catholic school, even after a tribunal hearing. The United Kingdom Government will now be approached for their reaction to our complaints. The NSS also lodged a further complaint about Northern Ireland along similar lines. The Commission has confirmed that the equivalent law there is already under investigation and the NSS's submission will be taken into consideration. |
NSS Speaks Out
The Section 5 victory (as reported above) gained coverage for the NSS in The Guardian and in Australia as well as widely throughout the press.
The ECtHR decisions brought a great deal of publicity starting with the BBC website, London 24, NBC News in America, Reuters, the Guardian Global Post Daily Telegraph EU Observer and RT. The Press Association story was widely picked up.
Terry Sanderson did a marathon session of radio interviews on Tuesday and Wednesday with appearances on Radio Wales, Three Counties and radio stations in Sheffield, West Midlands, Tees, Newcastle, London, Bristol, Cornwall, Devon, Nottingham, Scotland, Hereford & Worcester, Sussex, Essex, Berkshire, Northampton and Merseyside (sometimes more than once).
Meanwhile, Keith Porteous Wood was busy in TV studios with appearances on BBC news bulletins throughout the day, the Nicky Campbell programme on Radio 5 Live, ITV News London, BBC News Channel and the One O'Clock News on BBC1.
Alistair McBay did interviews with Sky News, Aljazeera, and BBC regional TV news programmes.
Stephen Evans could be heard on the Voice of Russia and BBC WM.
Quotes of the Week
"In general, it needs to be stated, time and again, that Christians are under little religious disadvantage in the UK. It does not serve their cause to claim otherwise."
(Ruth Gledhill, The Times)
"I still expect David Cameron to change the law and anything else would be a broken promise"
(Nurse Shirley Chaplin, who lost her religious discrimination appeal in the European Court this week)
"Times have changed, whether the Vatican likes it or not. The Vatican has been losing battle after battle in Ireland. Despite its vehement opposition, reforms on family planning, condoms, divorce and gay rights have all come to pass. Abortion is the last bastion, and it seems increasingly likely that it will lose in that arena as well. As we have seen elsewhere in strongly Catholic countries, including Spain, Mexico, Argentina and Uruguay, politicians are no longer bending the knee to the bishops. Instead, they are legislating in the best interests of the people they represent. That's as it should be."
(Jon O'Brien, president, Catholics for Choice)
Essays of the Week
Religious freedom is not an absolute right
(Jerome Taylor, Independent)
Repackaging discrimination as "religious freedom"
(Sarah Posner, Religion Dispatches)
Upcoming Events
Social: The Amplified Atheists Assembly!
Sat, 26th Jan 2013
Stand Up for Darwin Comedy Evening
Thu, 7th Feb 2013
NSS Fundraiser: Marlene Dietrich – an affectionate tribute.
Sat, 16th Feb 2013
A Not So Grim Look at Death!
Mon, 28th Jan 2013