Newsline 18 October 2013

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

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

News, Blogs & Opinion

	Ofsted report finds Al-Madinah school “dysfunctional” News \| Thu, 17th Oct 2013 A damning Ofsted report has found the Al-Madinah Muslim free school in Derby to be "dysfunctional" and "inadequate" in all areas. The report found the school was run by representatives of the community with limited knowledge and experience who had failed to ensure the safety of children, and had failed to appoint staff with appropriate skills, knowledge and experience. Inspectors said they saw no evidence during the inspection of boys and girls being treated unequally, but "due to limited canteen space, boys and girls have their lunches separately". The teaching was judged inadequate with the report blaming the staff's "low expectations" for pupils' low achievement. However, the school was praised for its "clear vision for the purpose and place of this school in the community." It said "pupils' spiritual and moral development is well supported in and out of school". The emphasis the school places on religion is made clear in the report. Inspectors saw few opportunities for pupils to apply their literacy or numeracy skills when working in other subjects with the exception of Islamic studies, where pupils had good opportunities to develop their literacy. In addition to Islamic studies, the school offers distinct religious education lessons, in which the locally agreed syllabus is followed, covering the six major world religions. The school was praised for taking pupils to visit a local Catholic school where pupils talked about their respective faiths and exchanged a copy of the Qur'an and set of rosary beads. According to the report, pupils speak positively about the good relationships in the school and the lack of bullying, but "pupils sometimes use homophobic terms of abuse to each other" but are clear that adults would reprimand them if they were overheard. Embarrassingly for the Government, the report says the school has not been adequately monitored or supported. Last week, the National Secular Society pointed out that the schools prospectus openly states that anything deemed "sensitive, inaccurate and potentially blasphemous will be censored or removed completely" from school's teaching materials. Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, said: "Right from the start we warned the Department for Education of the need to closely monitor free schools. The Department's laissez-faire approach to regulation, and its blind spot when it comes to 'faith schools', is denying pupils the opportunity to achieve their potential. At the same time, Michael Gove's ideological experiment is allowing religious groups to inculcate and indoctrinate children in any manner they choose. Children deserve much better from state funded education." The Schools minister will decide on 1 November whether to terminate the school's funding agreement. Meanwhile, trustees at Al-Madinah have written to all parents to make clear that the school has lifted its head covering requirement for female staff and pupils. The letter was posted on the school's website as the Government's deadline for changes approached on Thursday 15 October. Lord Nash, Schools Minister, wrote to Al-Madinah's governors last week with a catalogue of complaints about the school's non-compliance with the Department for Education's funding agreement. He had insisted that it immediately remove its requirement for female staff to wear head coverings, even if they were non-Muslims. In the letter, the Minister warned that it needed to address the "many and significant failings with regards to financial management" or risk being stripped of state funds. The school was closed suddenly for three days after an Ofsted inspection raised alarms about the safety of pupils. It had found the police criminal records checks had not been carried out on some members of staff. It was revealed that pupils spend hours each day on Koranic studies and praying and that girls are made to sit at the back of the classroom so that boys cannot look at them. No singing is permitted, except Islamic hymns, and no stringed instruments are allowed to be played. Fairy tales are also forbidden in the school. The school's letter to parents read: "All members of staff employed by Al-Madinah school have been notified in writing that they are not required to cover their hair, if it is contrary to their religious and cultural beliefs and values. "In addition we would like to remind you that children are not required nor compelled by the school to cover their hair and indeed, that this is a matter of choice." In its letter to staff, the school trustees said that a handbook with these policies would be distributed in November. It said: "Until recently, in keeping with our ethos as a faith-based school we believed that it was in the best interests of pupils at Al-Madinah school, their parents and the community and that female members of staff cover their hair. "The Trust and the Governing Body now realise how this practice could be interpreted and perceived as treating female members of staff less favourably than male members of staff and impacting on the right to freedom of religious and cultural expression. The Trust and the Governing Body would like to make it clear that this was never the intention and would like to apologise for any situation where staff felt discriminated against on cultural, religious or gender grounds. "With immediate effect the Trust and the Governing Body is notifying all employees of a change in policy, that female employees at Al-Madinah School are not required to cover their hair on school premises." The Sunday Times reported this week that there were questions about a £95,000 payment that the school had made to an organisation that employ relatives of some of the Governors. The papers said that "The sum is understood to have been paid by Al-Madinah school, which is funded by the taxpayer, to All Services Management Solutions (ASMS), a management services company, despite cheaper quotes from at least one other firm. "Officials from the DfE are believed to have found evidence of more than £8,000 of duplicate payments made by Al-Madinah to a company that provides it with educational supplies, and that more than £11,000 was wrongly used to fund bids to set up a further three free schools in Nottingham, Birmingham and Bradford. "While the school is understood to have denied any impropriety and pointed out that the two governors with relatives working at ASMS declared a potential conflict of interest and took no part in the decision to award the contract, the report's findings are likely to heap pressure on Gove to shut Al-Madinah." The Sunday Times reported: "Al-Madinah is understood to have told DfE investigators that Shahban Rehmat, its director of facilities, and Javid Akhtar, a governor, revealed their links with employees at ASMS, whose work for the school includes providing cleaners and site managers, and did not take part in the decision to award the contract. "Akhtar is also the director of Prestige HR Solutions, a firm that supplied Al-Madinah with human resource services at the cost of about £1,000 a month. He is chairman of the committee that oversees HR at the school. The contract was awarded before Akhtar joined the board of governors and the school is believed to have told DfE officials that neither he nor his company were known to governors or staff before the contract was awarded." Meanwhile, a non-religious mother who sent her son to the school in the hope that it would relieve him from the bullying he had experienced at his previous school, has now withdrawn him from Al-Madinah, telling the Daily Mail: "I sent my son to the school because he had been badly bullied at his last school and I felt that a faith school would be a safe place to send him. But it felt as though the bullying was coming from the school, rather than other teenagers. He was discriminated against because he had no religion. "At an awards night, I wanted to sit with my son and enjoy the evening. But he said: "No, mum, you can't the women aren't allowed to sit with the men" – and there was a big partition in the hall so I couldn't see him. I was stunned."
	Evangelism in schools – a parent’s perspective Opinion \| Mon, 14th Oct 2013 A first-hand account from a parent on discovering and trying to deal with evangelism in his child's school. Our son's non-faith junior school in Sheffield has been the object of a 'mission' campaign by a local evangelical Christian Church, hell-bent on 'capturing' nearby schools. We were rather late to catch on to the fact that the venue where our son's carol concert was held was not in a mainstream CofE Church (not that this would have necessarily been in line with a 'secular' school) but, in fact, carol concerts were held at Christ Church Fulwood – a conservative evangelical Church (CofE) who proudly boasted its retrogressive, sexist and homophobic beliefs in a series of well-produced and clearly displayed podcasts on its excellent website. We saw the 'brand name' CofE and stupidly assumed that this meant 'friendly' and 'mainstream' and 'not extreme'. What we hadn't realised (as we don't take a great deal of interest in such things) is that the CofE is of course, a very broad church and the evangelical wing has been gaining ground, power, and influence within the CofE. Indeed Christ Church Fulwood funds itself by tithing its middle-class congregation (some of whom it turns out are on the governing body of our son's school) in a wealthy area of Sheffield to the tune of £1.5m per year. In terms of interference in our son's junior school and in the local infants' school, Christ Church Fulwood, we discovered (through a chance remark by our niece who attends the school) had been going into school on a very regular basis, leading assemblies which included getting the children to repeat a 'mantra' — the contents of which we still are unclear on — but was something along the lines of 'Jesus is the light of the world' which had to be repeated a number of times. We were unhappy about this and particularly when we looked into exactly who the church was that was pursuing such a close relationship with the school. Amongst the podcasts, we found one (and we could only bear to listen to one) which was not only sexist, homophobic and misogynist (asserting that women were not fit to lead men because Adam appears in Verse 1 in Genesis and Eve does not turn up until verse 22) but which also made wild allegations about the local infant school and its teachings on personal and sexual education – utterly false and on a par with the more extreme leader columns of the Daily Mail. Thinking that perhaps we had missed something when we were choosing a school for our son, we checked the school's prospectus and website and found nothing to suggest any links with any religious group – as you would expect from a non-religious state school. However, the school have since admitted openly that they have a 'longstanding relationship with Christ Church Fulwood'. Unhappy — very unhappy — with the continuing relationship between church and school we entered into a protracted, frustrating and at times Kafkaesque dialogue with the school and Local Education Authority. Meetings have been held to which we were not party nor have we been allowed to know how discussions have progressed. We have been told that it 'would not be constructive to share information about discussions on these issues with parents'. Promises were made which resulted in a 'new policy on religious visitors to school' which was approximately the same as the old informal policy on religious visitors — with the notable addition that in a new gesture of inclusiveness the Chinese School of Dance, that major world religion, would now be coming into school — in between the continued regular visits of Christ Church Fulwood. Coupled with this, a 'Vexatious Complaints Policy' appeared on the school's website around the time that we were making our concerns heard by the school. 11 months down the line we are no nearer a conclusion (from our point of view) to this business, and children in the school are still being visited by this reactionary evangelical church. Responses from both the school and the LEA have made us feel 1) that we are clearly a group of aggressively leftist non-believers who are being entirely unreasonable and 2) that the Powers That Be would rather we shut up and went away quietly. They have given us the requisite 5 minutes of their time and now want us to go away so that the status quo can be maintained. And so far, maintained it has been – with the hate-preaching church continuing to make its regular mission to the school. The reality is that adults who come in and lead school assemblies are seen by the children as authority figures in the local community – and this means that the school has conferred a status of trust and respect on a group of individuals who preach hate and a fundamentalist, literalist and creationist approach to religion and life. What of the conflicting feelings of children listening of other faiths, 'other' sexualities, or of course the 50% of the children who are female and therefore apparently unfit to hold positions of authority over men? Will these children look back from adulthood and wonder what on earth was going on? And won't this potentially seed very early feelings of shame and inadequacy in children who don't 'fit' the preached 'norm'? Children at school should be protected from harm and not exposed to potential damage in order to serve the evangelical mission statement of a local church on a mission. Saul Freeman lives in Sheffield and has a son who attends a community school. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS. Read our report: Evangelism in schools – The role of external visitors in publically funded schools
	Secularists urge Scottish Government to remove non-elected religious reps from school boards News \| Thu, 17th Oct 2013 Edinburgh Secular Society (ESS) has lodged a petition with the Scottish Parliament calling for an end to the legal obligation on local authorities to appoint three unelected religious representatives to sit on their education committees. The move is being supported by the National Secular Society. At present every one of Scotland's 32 local authority education committees in Scotland is legally obliged to appoint three religious representatives. In most areas two religious representatives are nominated from each of the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland, with one other being appointed by the local authority. The results of the 2011 census show that almost half of all Scots profess no religious beliefs. This figure is higher among young people. There is no mandate for this privileged influence over our education system. Religious representatives are accountable only to their respective religious organisations and cannot be voted out by the public, yet they have full voting rights on the committees. The Church of Scotland has recognised this, reporting that ". . . Church representatives hold the balance of power on 19 local authority committees". A spokesperson for the ESS said: "That religious representatives have a direct influence on the education of our children is an unwelcome throwback to when churches used to run our schools prior to 1872. "ESS recognises the historical role that religious organisations played in the early education system; however changing demographics of our increasingly secular society make the current position untenable. It is profoundly undemocratic and needs to change. "Education committees may choose to draw on the wisdom of many advisory bodies experienced in the education of children, but why are religious leaders directly involved in governing the local education system? They should be free to give their counsel like any other individual or group but should not have a direct role in governing the education system. Even if they wanted to, groups like humanists, secularists and atheists are prevented from taking up a seat as a religious representative as they do not have a "place of worship" which the legislation requires." ESS has published the names of all the religious nominees on Scotland's education committees. Colin Emerson, ESS Vice-chair said: "To afford a particular section of society a privileged position within the decision making process of local government, based solely on their particular and personal religious beliefs, is profoundly and inherently undemocratic, unfair and discriminatory. It strikes against those specific virtues of justice and integrity underpinning our society and which lie at the heart of the Scottish Parliament." The initiative is also supported by Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow and a National Secular Society honorary associate, who commented: "In a society in which increasing numbers of people don't practice any religion, it's high time that we questioned a practice which gives religious hierarchies an influence over every child's education. I'm particularly concerned at the involvement of people who would promote utterly unscientific notions like creationism; pushing this absurd ideology at children is the very opposite of education." Alistair McBay the Scottish spokesperson of the National Secular Society said: "From the evidence we have of churches leveraging their chaplaincy roles in schools and the religious observance guidelines for the purposes of evangelism, so they also leverage these undemocratic positions for their own self-serving interests. Why else would the Kirk, for example, highlight these roles in its Education Committee work plan and provide training courses, handbooks etc. so as to provide "better trained local authority reps able to be more effective on LA Education Committees". Effective for whose ultimate benefit, exactly?" Also supporting the ESS in this challenge are the Humanist Society of Scotland and the University of Edinburgh Humanist Society.
	One oath for all Opinion \| Mon, 14th Oct 2013 Jessica Vautier argues that the proposal for a new oath isn't an attack on Britain's religious heritage. It is an attempt to make the justice system fairer, and for everyone to be treated equally. Bristol magistrate Ian Abrahams hit the news last week with his proposal to abolish religious oaths in courts. The debate will be occurring at the Magistrates' Association AGM on Saturday 19th October in Cardiff. Predictably, this has caused some upset in the higher echelons of the Church, with the Rev. Arun Arora (the Church of England's Director of Communications) even going so far as to say such proposals are "driven more by blinkered campaigning agendas than abiding interests in justice and truth". As somebody in the legal profession who is very concerned about truth and justice, I believe that secularists should be vocal in supporting the magistrate's proposal – but first, it is important to know exactly where we stand. Section 1 of the Oaths Act 1978 dictates the swearing of an oath on the New Testament (or the Old Testament if one is Jewish), beginning with the words "I swear by Almighty God". Only if someone "voluntarily objects" to taking this oath is there an opportunity to swear a non-religious affirmation (under Section 5 of the Act) as an alternative. Incidentally, the option for an affirmation was originally included in order to accommodate religious people (e.g. the Quakers) who consider it blasphemous to swear on the Bible, rather than for the benefit of the non-religious. Removing the religious oath would not be anti-religious, but pro-equality. The argument I hear most frequently against uniform secular oaths is that religious people are more likely to tell the truth if they are allowed to swear on their holy book. I am utterly unconvinced by this – such stereotypes are exactly the sort of assumptions that we should be trying to help decision-makers in court to avoid. Call me militant, but I don't see why the first thing a jury finds out about a defendant or witness should be which (if any) religion they subscribe to. This piece of unnecessary information is then subject to their hypotheses – is a religious person more likely to tell the truth than a non-religious person because they have a holy book to swear on? If we know someone is religious but has chosen not to swear on the Bible, does this mean they are planning to lie? Are followers of certain religions more trustworthy than others? As David Allen Green has previously pointed out, there is no way of telling whether somebody taking an oath on the Bible is religious or not, and the religiosity or otherwise of the oath-swearer makes no difference to the legal validity of the oath, which rather defeats the object. Further, if (as according to Abrahams in his interview with the Mail on Sunday) people are taking their oaths sworn on the Bible less and less seriously, the presumption that swearing a religious oath makes people more likely to tell the truth is not only incorrect but potentially damaging to the accurate decision-making of a jury or a magistrate. Ian Abrahams' suggestion is to replace the current religious oaths and non-religious affirmations with a standardised oath, stating: "I promise very sincerely to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I understand that if I fail to do so I will be committing an offence for which I will be punished and may be sent to prison". If it's threats of punishment that make people more likely to tell the truth, the threat of prison is far more immediate than the threat of God's displeasure, and it applies to the religious and irreligious alike. It would, at the very least, prevent the magistrate or jury from considering the religious inclinations of a witness rather than the evidence before them, when evaluating their truthfulness. The religious stand to gain from such a proposal too, by preventing decision-makers with prejudices from exercising them (consciously or otherwise) in their judgments. This is a suggestion for a secular oath, not an atheist one. It is not an attack on our "religious heritage", as has been claimed, but a deliberate attempt to make the justice system fairer. It makes all people equal (at least until they start answering questions).
	Your support needed for EP report on women’s sexual and reproductive rights News \| Thu, 17th Oct 2013 Next Tuesday (22 October), the European Parliament will vote on a report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights that has been put forward by the Parliament's Women's Rights Committee. The report comes as part of a major initiative by pro-choice MEPs, and seeks to help promote the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of EU citizens and beyond. Its call for convincing and positive action to promote SRHR comes within the context of virulent anti-choice opposition in several EU countries (e.g. Spain and Hungary) as well as within European institutions (e.g. the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Committee of Social Rights and in the Parliament itself). During the committee stage, the report met with opposition from a group of conservative MEPS. They tabled a vast number of amendments, most of which sought to restrict the reproductive and health rights of women. Many related to the protection of the human embryo (relying on the controversial ECJ Brüstle decision) and the extension to the scope of conscientious objection. These amendments were rejected however, with the report instead noting the role of conscientious objection in denying many women access to reproductive health services, such as information about, access to, and the purchase of contraception, prenatal testing, and lawful interruption of pregnancy. The report highlights the need to regulate and monitor the use of conscientious objection, so as to help guarantee that reproductive health care is provided as an individual's right. It recommends that high-quality abortion services, as a human right and public health concern, should be made legal, safe, and accessible to all within the public health systems of EU States. The report also stresses the importance of providing comprehensive and non-discriminatory SRHR information, education and services, through a rights-based approach, that promotes a positive view of LGBTI persons, and helps in the fight against stereotypes and all forms of gender violence. Despite the Women's Rights Committee rejecting the conservatives' amendments, we understand from MEPs that religious groups have been vigorously mobilising and lobbying MEPs to vote down the report. In response, the European Humanist Federation (EHF) has been asking people to write to the MEPs of their country in order to urge them to vote in favour of the report on the 22 October, in order to block further anti-choice opposition and to ensure that the European Parliament commits to promoting the basic rights of women in terms of their sexual and reproductive health. You can find a copy of the EHF's model letter here. This approach helped ensure the adoption of another report relating to the rights of women at the European Parliament. On Tuesday 8 October, the Parliament adopted a report relating to the largely unreported but significant problem of gendercide (a term referring to the systematic, deliberate and gender-based mass killing of people belonging to a particular sex – mostly commonly female infants). This report was aimed at combatting gendercide whilst preserving a woman's right to access sexual and reproductive services. It affirmed that gendercide remains a crime and a severe violation of human rights, and focused on the core and root reasons of gendercide in societies: son preference, gender inequality and rooted patriarchal culture. During the legislative process, opponents to women's rights and gender equality in the European Parliament attempted to hijack the report by arguing that only by restricting access to sexual and reproductive health services altogether can we eliminate gendercide and pre-natal sex selection. They intentionally conflated abortion for the purposes of sex-selection with coercive abortion, forced abortion, and voluntary abortion. They argued for a cut in all EU funding to SRHR, a restriction to women's access to SRHR services, and tabled a number of anti-choice amendments. Thanks to a mobilisation of progressive forces in the European Parliament, supported by several NGOs such as the EHF, Catholics for Choice and the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development, most of the conservative/religious attempts to weaken the report were defeated.
	New analysis shows very few people in England engage in religious activity News \| Thu, 17th Oct 2013 A new analysis of a survey undertaken in 2000-1 that looks at the way English people use their time has revealed that religious activity is something that the English are least likely to engage in. The new analysis is reported in the October 2013 issue of Future First, a bi-monthly bulletin from the Brierley Consultancy "aimed at providing information for future planning for church leaders, those responsible for leading Christian agencies, researchers, academics, and anybody interested in the way that the Church is moving at this time". The UK Times Use Survey was based on detailed diaries kept by randomly selected households. Every individual in the household was provided with a diary. Firstly, they were asked to record their activities for either a Saturday or a Sunday starting from 4am to 3.50am the following morning. Then they were asked to record their activities for one randomly selected weekday. In total, some 6,500 weekend and weekday adult diaries are available for analysis. The most popular activity was shopping. There was hardly any religious activity on weekdays and 7.9% recorded an hour or more on Sunday. Religious activity was defined as going to a service, praying alone or watching or listening to a religious programme. The analysis showed 90% of adults do no religious activity at all on Sunday, more than 95% do none on Saturday, Fridays or Wednesdays. 98% do none on Thursdays, Tuesdays or Monday. The findings are summarised in Future First by Professor Steve Bruce and Tony Glendinning of the University of Aberdeen as follows: "There is little religion in any form practised in public or private. Less than 11% of adults in England engage in any religious activity whatsoever (including personal prayers and meditation and consuming mass media religious programming) of any duration at any point during a typical week. Less than 7% attend church on a Sunday. This study offers little support to the postulate that the decline of conventional church-going has been offset by an increase of alternative religious activity." Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "This survey was conducted more than a decade ago and since then the number of people describing themselves as religious has fallen by more than 10%. It is likely that if this survey were to be repeated a similar downward trend would be apparent. Although it is difficult to know how much further this could fall before it became statistically insignificant." Meanwhile, a new Yougov poll shows that atheists are regarded as the least discriminated against people in the country. Interviewees were shown a list of groups and asked how much discrimination they thought each suffered in Britain today. When the percentages replying 'a lot' or 'some' was combined, the mentally ill were regarded as the most likely group to suffer discrimination (67%) followed by gypsies/travellers (62%); transsexuals (60%), and immigrants (58%). 57% thought Muslims were discriminated against, while 25% thought Christians were; 34% thought Jews were: while only 10% thought atheists were – the lowest figure. See the survey here.
	Polish Catholic Church on the spot over paedophile priests and child abuse cover ups News \| Thu, 17th Oct 2013 Polish radio is reporting that a man who, as a child, was abused by a Catholic priest has written to the Pope after the Church refused to entertain a compensation claim. The man, whose identity is protected by Polish privacy laws, is being referred to as Marcin K, and claims he was abused by Father Zbigniew R. from 2000-2001 in Kolobrzeg, northern Poland. The priest was sentenced to two years imprisonment in 2012, but after claiming he was suffering health problems, he was released and did not serve any of his sentence. Marcin K. says the Church knew what was happening but refused to do anything about it. He is the first person in Poland to try to obtain redress from the Church for abuse. The victim is asking for 200,000 zloty (£40,000) from the local diocese and 100,000 zloty (€20,000) from Father Zbigniew K. However, during the first hearing on Thursday 3 September, no settlement was reached. Marcin K. then wrote to Pope Francis: "This letter is a cry for all children who have been wronged in Poland. Your Holiness, the events of my childhood destroyed my ability to find pure love and trust. The fear of intimacy and lack of confidence in people mean that I cannot enter into a healthy relationship with another person." Meanwhile, representatives of the Polish Catholic Church have apologised for the alleged child sex abuse carried out by Archbishop Josef Wesolowski, a 65-year old Pole who served as a papal envoy in the Caribbean island of the Dominican Republic and his 38-year-old Polish colleague Fr Wojciech Gil. Prosecuting authorities in the Dominican Republic allege that the two men abused several boys while working there. Bishop Wojciech Polak, speaking for the Polish Bishops Conference, said: "Trust in the Church is waning. We are sorry. This is the least we can do." Wojciech Gil, who was added to the Interpol list of wanted criminals late last month and is currently residing with his parents in southernPoland. He denied any wrongdoing in an interview with public broadcaster TVP last week. Polish prosecutors have now launched a separate investigation into the priests. Polish Episcopate spokesman Father Jozef Kloch rejected claims that the Polish Church is trying to cover up paedophilia, and noted that new guidelines had been adopted on the matter in March 2012. But Jesuit priest, Father Adam Zak, who is responsible for youth welfare in the Polish Episcopate said: "The scale of paedophilia in the Church in Poland is unknown. The cases that end up in court are just the tip of the iceberg." He said 27 priests were convicted of child sex abuse in Poland over the past decade. Meanwhile, in Argentina a priest has been given a 15-year jail sentence for the sexual abuse of adolescent boy in the 1990s. At the time of the original accusations, Fr Julio Cesar Grassi was defended by Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (later to become Pope Francis). Grassi was leader of the Buenos Aires Happy Children Foundation, a centre for troubled boys when the crime took place and he has maintained his innocence throughout. He was jailed by the provincial court in Moron. He told the court: "In my life, all I have done was to help the children in need. The prosecutors have lied and set up a case against me." The case is making headlines in Argentina because — according to the Wall Street Journal — Bergoglio gave an interview to the Argentine magazine Veintitres in 2006 in which he said: "There is a media campaign against Fr Grassi, a condemnation in the media." He said that Grassi had not been suspended from his duties as a priest because his case was "different" from other cases of alleged sexual abuse that emerged at the time. Grassi was first accused in 1996. He was eventually convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 2009, but while the several appeal processes were heard, he was allowed to live across the road from the youth centre. He has one more appeal to make to the Supreme Court, which he will do from prison. After Grassi's conviction in 2009, Bergoglio commissioned a legal study defending the priest and insisting that he was innocent. The report said that many sexual abuse claims were part of a strategy to defame the church.

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

NSS Speaks Out

We were quoted in the Guardian's coverage of the NSS initiated exam board investigation which found that the Yesodey Hatorah Jewish faith school had blacked out questions on evolution in science exam papers.

Following on from last week's coverage of our Evangelism in schools report, our campaigns manager Stephen Evans discussed the report's findings with Iain Dale on LBC Radio and on BBC Radio Sheffield. We were also quoted by the BBC in their coverage of the report.

Keith Porteous Wood appeared on BBC Radio Liverpool to discuss the Al-Madinah school controversy and the need to reform RE.

Quotes of the Week

"International human rights law exists to protect the rights of individuals to manifest their beliefs, not to protect the beliefs themselves."
(David Lidington, Minister of State at the Foreign Office in a parliamentary answer)

"Bans become tools for intolerant people to prevent tolerant people from expressing themselves."
(Daniel Finkelstein, The Times)

Essays of the Week

No Ordinary Violence
(Sam Harris, blog)

The Veil – an old debate in new clothes
(Kenan Malik, Open Democracy)

	Ofsted report finds Al-Madinah school “dysfunctional” News \| Thu, 17th Oct 2013 A damning Ofsted report has found the Al-Madinah Muslim free school in Derby to be "dysfunctional" and "inadequate" in all areas. The report found the school was run by representatives of the community with limited knowledge and experience who had failed to ensure the safety of children, and had failed to appoint staff with appropriate skills, knowledge and experience. Inspectors said they saw no evidence during the inspection of boys and girls being treated unequally, but "due to limited canteen space, boys and girls have their lunches separately". The teaching was judged inadequate with the report blaming the staff's "low expectations" for pupils' low achievement. However, the school was praised for its "clear vision for the purpose and place of this school in the community." It said "pupils' spiritual and moral development is well supported in and out of school". The emphasis the school places on religion is made clear in the report. Inspectors saw few opportunities for pupils to apply their literacy or numeracy skills when working in other subjects with the exception of Islamic studies, where pupils had good opportunities to develop their literacy. In addition to Islamic studies, the school offers distinct religious education lessons, in which the locally agreed syllabus is followed, covering the six major world religions. The school was praised for taking pupils to visit a local Catholic school where pupils talked about their respective faiths and exchanged a copy of the Qur'an and set of rosary beads. According to the report, pupils speak positively about the good relationships in the school and the lack of bullying, but "pupils sometimes use homophobic terms of abuse to each other" but are clear that adults would reprimand them if they were overheard. Embarrassingly for the Government, the report says the school has not been adequately monitored or supported. Last week, the National Secular Society pointed out that the schools prospectus openly states that anything deemed "sensitive, inaccurate and potentially blasphemous will be censored or removed completely" from school's teaching materials. Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, said: "Right from the start we warned the Department for Education of the need to closely monitor free schools. The Department's laissez-faire approach to regulation, and its blind spot when it comes to 'faith schools', is denying pupils the opportunity to achieve their potential. At the same time, Michael Gove's ideological experiment is allowing religious groups to inculcate and indoctrinate children in any manner they choose. Children deserve much better from state funded education." The Schools minister will decide on 1 November whether to terminate the school's funding agreement. Meanwhile, trustees at Al-Madinah have written to all parents to make clear that the school has lifted its head covering requirement for female staff and pupils. The letter was posted on the school's website as the Government's deadline for changes approached on Thursday 15 October. Lord Nash, Schools Minister, wrote to Al-Madinah's governors last week with a catalogue of complaints about the school's non-compliance with the Department for Education's funding agreement. He had insisted that it immediately remove its requirement for female staff to wear head coverings, even if they were non-Muslims. In the letter, the Minister warned that it needed to address the "many and significant failings with regards to financial management" or risk being stripped of state funds. The school was closed suddenly for three days after an Ofsted inspection raised alarms about the safety of pupils. It had found the police criminal records checks had not been carried out on some members of staff. It was revealed that pupils spend hours each day on Koranic studies and praying and that girls are made to sit at the back of the classroom so that boys cannot look at them. No singing is permitted, except Islamic hymns, and no stringed instruments are allowed to be played. Fairy tales are also forbidden in the school. The school's letter to parents read: "All members of staff employed by Al-Madinah school have been notified in writing that they are not required to cover their hair, if it is contrary to their religious and cultural beliefs and values. "In addition we would like to remind you that children are not required nor compelled by the school to cover their hair and indeed, that this is a matter of choice." In its letter to staff, the school trustees said that a handbook with these policies would be distributed in November. It said: "Until recently, in keeping with our ethos as a faith-based school we believed that it was in the best interests of pupils at Al-Madinah school, their parents and the community and that female members of staff cover their hair. "The Trust and the Governing Body now realise how this practice could be interpreted and perceived as treating female members of staff less favourably than male members of staff and impacting on the right to freedom of religious and cultural expression. The Trust and the Governing Body would like to make it clear that this was never the intention and would like to apologise for any situation where staff felt discriminated against on cultural, religious or gender grounds. "With immediate effect the Trust and the Governing Body is notifying all employees of a change in policy, that female employees at Al-Madinah School are not required to cover their hair on school premises." The Sunday Times reported this week that there were questions about a £95,000 payment that the school had made to an organisation that employ relatives of some of the Governors. The papers said that "The sum is understood to have been paid by Al-Madinah school, which is funded by the taxpayer, to All Services Management Solutions (ASMS), a management services company, despite cheaper quotes from at least one other firm. "Officials from the DfE are believed to have found evidence of more than £8,000 of duplicate payments made by Al-Madinah to a company that provides it with educational supplies, and that more than £11,000 was wrongly used to fund bids to set up a further three free schools in Nottingham, Birmingham and Bradford. "While the school is understood to have denied any impropriety and pointed out that the two governors with relatives working at ASMS declared a potential conflict of interest and took no part in the decision to award the contract, the report's findings are likely to heap pressure on Gove to shut Al-Madinah." The Sunday Times reported: "Al-Madinah is understood to have told DfE investigators that Shahban Rehmat, its director of facilities, and Javid Akhtar, a governor, revealed their links with employees at ASMS, whose work for the school includes providing cleaners and site managers, and did not take part in the decision to award the contract. "Akhtar is also the director of Prestige HR Solutions, a firm that supplied Al-Madinah with human resource services at the cost of about £1,000 a month. He is chairman of the committee that oversees HR at the school. The contract was awarded before Akhtar joined the board of governors and the school is believed to have told DfE officials that neither he nor his company were known to governors or staff before the contract was awarded." Meanwhile, a non-religious mother who sent her son to the school in the hope that it would relieve him from the bullying he had experienced at his previous school, has now withdrawn him from Al-Madinah, telling the Daily Mail: "I sent my son to the school because he had been badly bullied at his last school and I felt that a faith school would be a safe place to send him. But it felt as though the bullying was coming from the school, rather than other teenagers. He was discriminated against because he had no religion. "At an awards night, I wanted to sit with my son and enjoy the evening. But he said: "No, mum, you can't the women aren't allowed to sit with the men" – and there was a big partition in the hall so I couldn't see him. I was stunned."
	Evangelism in schools – a parent’s perspective Opinion \| Mon, 14th Oct 2013 A first-hand account from a parent on discovering and trying to deal with evangelism in his child's school. Our son's non-faith junior school in Sheffield has been the object of a 'mission' campaign by a local evangelical Christian Church, hell-bent on 'capturing' nearby schools. We were rather late to catch on to the fact that the venue where our son's carol concert was held was not in a mainstream CofE Church (not that this would have necessarily been in line with a 'secular' school) but, in fact, carol concerts were held at Christ Church Fulwood – a conservative evangelical Church (CofE) who proudly boasted its retrogressive, sexist and homophobic beliefs in a series of well-produced and clearly displayed podcasts on its excellent website. We saw the 'brand name' CofE and stupidly assumed that this meant 'friendly' and 'mainstream' and 'not extreme'. What we hadn't realised (as we don't take a great deal of interest in such things) is that the CofE is of course, a very broad church and the evangelical wing has been gaining ground, power, and influence within the CofE. Indeed Christ Church Fulwood funds itself by tithing its middle-class congregation (some of whom it turns out are on the governing body of our son's school) in a wealthy area of Sheffield to the tune of £1.5m per year. In terms of interference in our son's junior school and in the local infants' school, Christ Church Fulwood, we discovered (through a chance remark by our niece who attends the school) had been going into school on a very regular basis, leading assemblies which included getting the children to repeat a 'mantra' — the contents of which we still are unclear on — but was something along the lines of 'Jesus is the light of the world' which had to be repeated a number of times. We were unhappy about this and particularly when we looked into exactly who the church was that was pursuing such a close relationship with the school. Amongst the podcasts, we found one (and we could only bear to listen to one) which was not only sexist, homophobic and misogynist (asserting that women were not fit to lead men because Adam appears in Verse 1 in Genesis and Eve does not turn up until verse 22) but which also made wild allegations about the local infant school and its teachings on personal and sexual education – utterly false and on a par with the more extreme leader columns of the Daily Mail. Thinking that perhaps we had missed something when we were choosing a school for our son, we checked the school's prospectus and website and found nothing to suggest any links with any religious group – as you would expect from a non-religious state school. However, the school have since admitted openly that they have a 'longstanding relationship with Christ Church Fulwood'. Unhappy — very unhappy — with the continuing relationship between church and school we entered into a protracted, frustrating and at times Kafkaesque dialogue with the school and Local Education Authority. Meetings have been held to which we were not party nor have we been allowed to know how discussions have progressed. We have been told that it 'would not be constructive to share information about discussions on these issues with parents'. Promises were made which resulted in a 'new policy on religious visitors to school' which was approximately the same as the old informal policy on religious visitors — with the notable addition that in a new gesture of inclusiveness the Chinese School of Dance, that major world religion, would now be coming into school — in between the continued regular visits of Christ Church Fulwood. Coupled with this, a 'Vexatious Complaints Policy' appeared on the school's website around the time that we were making our concerns heard by the school. 11 months down the line we are no nearer a conclusion (from our point of view) to this business, and children in the school are still being visited by this reactionary evangelical church. Responses from both the school and the LEA have made us feel 1) that we are clearly a group of aggressively leftist non-believers who are being entirely unreasonable and 2) that the Powers That Be would rather we shut up and went away quietly. They have given us the requisite 5 minutes of their time and now want us to go away so that the status quo can be maintained. And so far, maintained it has been – with the hate-preaching church continuing to make its regular mission to the school. The reality is that adults who come in and lead school assemblies are seen by the children as authority figures in the local community – and this means that the school has conferred a status of trust and respect on a group of individuals who preach hate and a fundamentalist, literalist and creationist approach to religion and life. What of the conflicting feelings of children listening of other faiths, 'other' sexualities, or of course the 50% of the children who are female and therefore apparently unfit to hold positions of authority over men? Will these children look back from adulthood and wonder what on earth was going on? And won't this potentially seed very early feelings of shame and inadequacy in children who don't 'fit' the preached 'norm'? Children at school should be protected from harm and not exposed to potential damage in order to serve the evangelical mission statement of a local church on a mission. Saul Freeman lives in Sheffield and has a son who attends a community school. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS. Read our report: Evangelism in schools – The role of external visitors in publically funded schools
	Secularists urge Scottish Government to remove non-elected religious reps from school boards News \| Thu, 17th Oct 2013 Edinburgh Secular Society (ESS) has lodged a petition with the Scottish Parliament calling for an end to the legal obligation on local authorities to appoint three unelected religious representatives to sit on their education committees. The move is being supported by the National Secular Society. At present every one of Scotland's 32 local authority education committees in Scotland is legally obliged to appoint three religious representatives. In most areas two religious representatives are nominated from each of the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland, with one other being appointed by the local authority. The results of the 2011 census show that almost half of all Scots profess no religious beliefs. This figure is higher among young people. There is no mandate for this privileged influence over our education system. Religious representatives are accountable only to their respective religious organisations and cannot be voted out by the public, yet they have full voting rights on the committees. The Church of Scotland has recognised this, reporting that ". . . Church representatives hold the balance of power on 19 local authority committees". A spokesperson for the ESS said: "That religious representatives have a direct influence on the education of our children is an unwelcome throwback to when churches used to run our schools prior to 1872. "ESS recognises the historical role that religious organisations played in the early education system; however changing demographics of our increasingly secular society make the current position untenable. It is profoundly undemocratic and needs to change. "Education committees may choose to draw on the wisdom of many advisory bodies experienced in the education of children, but why are religious leaders directly involved in governing the local education system? They should be free to give their counsel like any other individual or group but should not have a direct role in governing the education system. Even if they wanted to, groups like humanists, secularists and atheists are prevented from taking up a seat as a religious representative as they do not have a "place of worship" which the legislation requires." ESS has published the names of all the religious nominees on Scotland's education committees. Colin Emerson, ESS Vice-chair said: "To afford a particular section of society a privileged position within the decision making process of local government, based solely on their particular and personal religious beliefs, is profoundly and inherently undemocratic, unfair and discriminatory. It strikes against those specific virtues of justice and integrity underpinning our society and which lie at the heart of the Scottish Parliament." The initiative is also supported by Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow and a National Secular Society honorary associate, who commented: "In a society in which increasing numbers of people don't practice any religion, it's high time that we questioned a practice which gives religious hierarchies an influence over every child's education. I'm particularly concerned at the involvement of people who would promote utterly unscientific notions like creationism; pushing this absurd ideology at children is the very opposite of education." Alistair McBay the Scottish spokesperson of the National Secular Society said: "From the evidence we have of churches leveraging their chaplaincy roles in schools and the religious observance guidelines for the purposes of evangelism, so they also leverage these undemocratic positions for their own self-serving interests. Why else would the Kirk, for example, highlight these roles in its Education Committee work plan and provide training courses, handbooks etc. so as to provide "better trained local authority reps able to be more effective on LA Education Committees". Effective for whose ultimate benefit, exactly?" Also supporting the ESS in this challenge are the Humanist Society of Scotland and the University of Edinburgh Humanist Society.
	One oath for all Opinion \| Mon, 14th Oct 2013 Jessica Vautier argues that the proposal for a new oath isn't an attack on Britain's religious heritage. It is an attempt to make the justice system fairer, and for everyone to be treated equally. Bristol magistrate Ian Abrahams hit the news last week with his proposal to abolish religious oaths in courts. The debate will be occurring at the Magistrates' Association AGM on Saturday 19th October in Cardiff. Predictably, this has caused some upset in the higher echelons of the Church, with the Rev. Arun Arora (the Church of England's Director of Communications) even going so far as to say such proposals are "driven more by blinkered campaigning agendas than abiding interests in justice and truth". As somebody in the legal profession who is very concerned about truth and justice, I believe that secularists should be vocal in supporting the magistrate's proposal – but first, it is important to know exactly where we stand. Section 1 of the Oaths Act 1978 dictates the swearing of an oath on the New Testament (or the Old Testament if one is Jewish), beginning with the words "I swear by Almighty God". Only if someone "voluntarily objects" to taking this oath is there an opportunity to swear a non-religious affirmation (under Section 5 of the Act) as an alternative. Incidentally, the option for an affirmation was originally included in order to accommodate religious people (e.g. the Quakers) who consider it blasphemous to swear on the Bible, rather than for the benefit of the non-religious. Removing the religious oath would not be anti-religious, but pro-equality. The argument I hear most frequently against uniform secular oaths is that religious people are more likely to tell the truth if they are allowed to swear on their holy book. I am utterly unconvinced by this – such stereotypes are exactly the sort of assumptions that we should be trying to help decision-makers in court to avoid. Call me militant, but I don't see why the first thing a jury finds out about a defendant or witness should be which (if any) religion they subscribe to. This piece of unnecessary information is then subject to their hypotheses – is a religious person more likely to tell the truth than a non-religious person because they have a holy book to swear on? If we know someone is religious but has chosen not to swear on the Bible, does this mean they are planning to lie? Are followers of certain religions more trustworthy than others? As David Allen Green has previously pointed out, there is no way of telling whether somebody taking an oath on the Bible is religious or not, and the religiosity or otherwise of the oath-swearer makes no difference to the legal validity of the oath, which rather defeats the object. Further, if (as according to Abrahams in his interview with the Mail on Sunday) people are taking their oaths sworn on the Bible less and less seriously, the presumption that swearing a religious oath makes people more likely to tell the truth is not only incorrect but potentially damaging to the accurate decision-making of a jury or a magistrate. Ian Abrahams' suggestion is to replace the current religious oaths and non-religious affirmations with a standardised oath, stating: "I promise very sincerely to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I understand that if I fail to do so I will be committing an offence for which I will be punished and may be sent to prison". If it's threats of punishment that make people more likely to tell the truth, the threat of prison is far more immediate than the threat of God's displeasure, and it applies to the religious and irreligious alike. It would, at the very least, prevent the magistrate or jury from considering the religious inclinations of a witness rather than the evidence before them, when evaluating their truthfulness. The religious stand to gain from such a proposal too, by preventing decision-makers with prejudices from exercising them (consciously or otherwise) in their judgments. This is a suggestion for a secular oath, not an atheist one. It is not an attack on our "religious heritage", as has been claimed, but a deliberate attempt to make the justice system fairer. It makes all people equal (at least until they start answering questions).
	Your support needed for EP report on women’s sexual and reproductive rights News \| Thu, 17th Oct 2013 Next Tuesday (22 October), the European Parliament will vote on a report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights that has been put forward by the Parliament's Women's Rights Committee. The report comes as part of a major initiative by pro-choice MEPs, and seeks to help promote the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of EU citizens and beyond. Its call for convincing and positive action to promote SRHR comes within the context of virulent anti-choice opposition in several EU countries (e.g. Spain and Hungary) as well as within European institutions (e.g. the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Committee of Social Rights and in the Parliament itself). During the committee stage, the report met with opposition from a group of conservative MEPS. They tabled a vast number of amendments, most of which sought to restrict the reproductive and health rights of women. Many related to the protection of the human embryo (relying on the controversial ECJ Brüstle decision) and the extension to the scope of conscientious objection. These amendments were rejected however, with the report instead noting the role of conscientious objection in denying many women access to reproductive health services, such as information about, access to, and the purchase of contraception, prenatal testing, and lawful interruption of pregnancy. The report highlights the need to regulate and monitor the use of conscientious objection, so as to help guarantee that reproductive health care is provided as an individual's right. It recommends that high-quality abortion services, as a human right and public health concern, should be made legal, safe, and accessible to all within the public health systems of EU States. The report also stresses the importance of providing comprehensive and non-discriminatory SRHR information, education and services, through a rights-based approach, that promotes a positive view of LGBTI persons, and helps in the fight against stereotypes and all forms of gender violence. Despite the Women's Rights Committee rejecting the conservatives' amendments, we understand from MEPs that religious groups have been vigorously mobilising and lobbying MEPs to vote down the report. In response, the European Humanist Federation (EHF) has been asking people to write to the MEPs of their country in order to urge them to vote in favour of the report on the 22 October, in order to block further anti-choice opposition and to ensure that the European Parliament commits to promoting the basic rights of women in terms of their sexual and reproductive health. You can find a copy of the EHF's model letter here. This approach helped ensure the adoption of another report relating to the rights of women at the European Parliament. On Tuesday 8 October, the Parliament adopted a report relating to the largely unreported but significant problem of gendercide (a term referring to the systematic, deliberate and gender-based mass killing of people belonging to a particular sex – mostly commonly female infants). This report was aimed at combatting gendercide whilst preserving a woman's right to access sexual and reproductive services. It affirmed that gendercide remains a crime and a severe violation of human rights, and focused on the core and root reasons of gendercide in societies: son preference, gender inequality and rooted patriarchal culture. During the legislative process, opponents to women's rights and gender equality in the European Parliament attempted to hijack the report by arguing that only by restricting access to sexual and reproductive health services altogether can we eliminate gendercide and pre-natal sex selection. They intentionally conflated abortion for the purposes of sex-selection with coercive abortion, forced abortion, and voluntary abortion. They argued for a cut in all EU funding to SRHR, a restriction to women's access to SRHR services, and tabled a number of anti-choice amendments. Thanks to a mobilisation of progressive forces in the European Parliament, supported by several NGOs such as the EHF, Catholics for Choice and the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development, most of the conservative/religious attempts to weaken the report were defeated.
	New analysis shows very few people in England engage in religious activity News \| Thu, 17th Oct 2013 A new analysis of a survey undertaken in 2000-1 that looks at the way English people use their time has revealed that religious activity is something that the English are least likely to engage in. The new analysis is reported in the October 2013 issue of Future First, a bi-monthly bulletin from the Brierley Consultancy "aimed at providing information for future planning for church leaders, those responsible for leading Christian agencies, researchers, academics, and anybody interested in the way that the Church is moving at this time". The UK Times Use Survey was based on detailed diaries kept by randomly selected households. Every individual in the household was provided with a diary. Firstly, they were asked to record their activities for either a Saturday or a Sunday starting from 4am to 3.50am the following morning. Then they were asked to record their activities for one randomly selected weekday. In total, some 6,500 weekend and weekday adult diaries are available for analysis. The most popular activity was shopping. There was hardly any religious activity on weekdays and 7.9% recorded an hour or more on Sunday. Religious activity was defined as going to a service, praying alone or watching or listening to a religious programme. The analysis showed 90% of adults do no religious activity at all on Sunday, more than 95% do none on Saturday, Fridays or Wednesdays. 98% do none on Thursdays, Tuesdays or Monday. The findings are summarised in Future First by Professor Steve Bruce and Tony Glendinning of the University of Aberdeen as follows: "There is little religion in any form practised in public or private. Less than 11% of adults in England engage in any religious activity whatsoever (including personal prayers and meditation and consuming mass media religious programming) of any duration at any point during a typical week. Less than 7% attend church on a Sunday. This study offers little support to the postulate that the decline of conventional church-going has been offset by an increase of alternative religious activity." Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "This survey was conducted more than a decade ago and since then the number of people describing themselves as religious has fallen by more than 10%. It is likely that if this survey were to be repeated a similar downward trend would be apparent. Although it is difficult to know how much further this could fall before it became statistically insignificant." Meanwhile, a new Yougov poll shows that atheists are regarded as the least discriminated against people in the country. Interviewees were shown a list of groups and asked how much discrimination they thought each suffered in Britain today. When the percentages replying 'a lot' or 'some' was combined, the mentally ill were regarded as the most likely group to suffer discrimination (67%) followed by gypsies/travellers (62%); transsexuals (60%), and immigrants (58%). 57% thought Muslims were discriminated against, while 25% thought Christians were; 34% thought Jews were: while only 10% thought atheists were – the lowest figure. See the survey here.
	Polish Catholic Church on the spot over paedophile priests and child abuse cover ups News \| Thu, 17th Oct 2013 Polish radio is reporting that a man who, as a child, was abused by a Catholic priest has written to the Pope after the Church refused to entertain a compensation claim. The man, whose identity is protected by Polish privacy laws, is being referred to as Marcin K, and claims he was abused by Father Zbigniew R. from 2000-2001 in Kolobrzeg, northern Poland. The priest was sentenced to two years imprisonment in 2012, but after claiming he was suffering health problems, he was released and did not serve any of his sentence. Marcin K. says the Church knew what was happening but refused to do anything about it. He is the first person in Poland to try to obtain redress from the Church for abuse. The victim is asking for 200,000 zloty (£40,000) from the local diocese and 100,000 zloty (€20,000) from Father Zbigniew K. However, during the first hearing on Thursday 3 September, no settlement was reached. Marcin K. then wrote to Pope Francis: "This letter is a cry for all children who have been wronged in Poland. Your Holiness, the events of my childhood destroyed my ability to find pure love and trust. The fear of intimacy and lack of confidence in people mean that I cannot enter into a healthy relationship with another person." Meanwhile, representatives of the Polish Catholic Church have apologised for the alleged child sex abuse carried out by Archbishop Josef Wesolowski, a 65-year old Pole who served as a papal envoy in the Caribbean island of the Dominican Republic and his 38-year-old Polish colleague Fr Wojciech Gil. Prosecuting authorities in the Dominican Republic allege that the two men abused several boys while working there. Bishop Wojciech Polak, speaking for the Polish Bishops Conference, said: "Trust in the Church is waning. We are sorry. This is the least we can do." Wojciech Gil, who was added to the Interpol list of wanted criminals late last month and is currently residing with his parents in southernPoland. He denied any wrongdoing in an interview with public broadcaster TVP last week. Polish prosecutors have now launched a separate investigation into the priests. Polish Episcopate spokesman Father Jozef Kloch rejected claims that the Polish Church is trying to cover up paedophilia, and noted that new guidelines had been adopted on the matter in March 2012. But Jesuit priest, Father Adam Zak, who is responsible for youth welfare in the Polish Episcopate said: "The scale of paedophilia in the Church in Poland is unknown. The cases that end up in court are just the tip of the iceberg." He said 27 priests were convicted of child sex abuse in Poland over the past decade. Meanwhile, in Argentina a priest has been given a 15-year jail sentence for the sexual abuse of adolescent boy in the 1990s. At the time of the original accusations, Fr Julio Cesar Grassi was defended by Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (later to become Pope Francis). Grassi was leader of the Buenos Aires Happy Children Foundation, a centre for troubled boys when the crime took place and he has maintained his innocence throughout. He was jailed by the provincial court in Moron. He told the court: "In my life, all I have done was to help the children in need. The prosecutors have lied and set up a case against me." The case is making headlines in Argentina because — according to the Wall Street Journal — Bergoglio gave an interview to the Argentine magazine Veintitres in 2006 in which he said: "There is a media campaign against Fr Grassi, a condemnation in the media." He said that Grassi had not been suspended from his duties as a priest because his case was "different" from other cases of alleged sexual abuse that emerged at the time. Grassi was first accused in 1996. He was eventually convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 2009, but while the several appeal processes were heard, he was allowed to live across the road from the youth centre. He has one more appeal to make to the Supreme Court, which he will do from prison. After Grassi's conviction in 2009, Bergoglio commissioned a legal study defending the priest and insisting that he was innocent. The report said that many sexual abuse claims were part of a strategy to defame the church.

Our use of cookies

Newsline 18 October 2013

News, Blogs & Opinion

Ofsted report finds Al-Madinah school “dysfunctional”

Evangelism in schools – a parent’s perspective

Secularists urge Scottish Government to remove non-elected religious reps from school boards

One oath for all

Your support needed for EP report on women’s sexual and reproductive rights

New analysis shows very few people in England engage in religious activity

Polish Catholic Church on the spot over paedophile priests and child abuse cover ups

NSS Speaks Out

Quotes of the Week

Essays of the Week

Upcoming Events

Conference workshop: Secularism and feminism within BME communities

Should religion embrace secularism debate - Nottingham Secular Society

Freedom - not Islamism - is my culture: A talk by Maryam Namazie

NSS conference: Secularism and feminism – a common cause

NSS fundraiser: Women laughing

Newsline 18 October 2013

News, Blogs & Opinion

NSS Speaks Out

Quotes of the Week

Essays of the Week

Upcoming Events

Sign up for our newsletter