Newsline 20 December 2013

Universities UK withdraws its guidance on gender segregation

News | Fri, 13th Dec 2013

Universities UK (UUK) has withdrawn its controversial guidance that gender segregation could be permitted at UK universities.

This comes shortly after Downing Street weighed in on the debate; the prime minister's official spokesperson said Mr Cameron "doesn't believe guest speakers should be allowed to address segregated audiences," and that he felt "very strongly about this".

Chief Executive of UUK, Nicola Dandridge, responded saying: "Universities UK agrees entirely with the prime minister that universities should not enforce gender segregation on audiences at the request of guest speakers. However, where the gender segregation is voluntary, the law is unclear".

She stated that UUK is now working with lawyers and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to clarify the position, but that, in the meantime, it has withdrawn the case study in the guidance which triggered the debate.

The EHRC had said that it thought the gender segregation aspect of the guidance was potentially unlawful. Its chief executive, Mark Hammond, argued that gender segregation was "not permissible" under equalities laws, adding that UUK's guidance required clarification.

David Cameron's intervention followed comments by the education secretary, Michael Gove, who had been amongst those calling for a withdrawal of the original guidance, which he described as "wrong and harmful". He rejected the notion that segregation could be defended on the grounds of free expression, commenting, "we should not pander to extremism. Speakers who insist on segregating audiences should not be indulged by educators".

On Thursday, Chukka Umunna, shadow business secretary, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he was "horrified" by UUK's position.

Earlier this week, a large protest against the guidance was held outside the UUK's office on Human Rights day, drawing national coverage from Channel 4.

UUK had originally advised that segregation by gender in talks from external speakers is fine, as long as men and women are sitting on a "side by side basis" and one party is not at a disadvantage.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, commented, "We welcome this development, having always maintained that a commitment to free speech does not extend to a speaker determining that an audience be segregated on gender grounds".

He cautioned however, that the guidelines should not be simply "adjusted" so that a way round can be found so as to make gender segregation pass a legal test. He said, "Such segregation is wrong in principle and should be stopped in universities entirely. Even voluntary segregation symbolises a mind-set that puts women in a different — and inferior — category."

Double-talk and betrayal put massive obstacles in the way of women’s rights

Opinion | Thu, 12th Dec 2013

Using the language of freedom, Islamists are turning back the clock on women's human rights. Segregation in universities is just another example, argues Anne Marie Waters.

There has been condemnation from both the left and right following revelations that gender segregation is taking place in British universities. Last Tuesday (on Human Rights Day) I spoke at a protest — which I attended on behalf of the National Secular Society — against Universities UK (UUK), the so-called "voice of the UK's universities", which issued guidance recently stating that it was A-OK to segregate men and women at public debates if some Islamist misogynist requires it be so.

The guidance of UUK stated that universities must consider freedom of speech alongside discrimination and equality considerations if faced with a request, from a speaker, that an audience be segregated along gender lines. The Chief Executive of UUK, Nicola Dandridge, told the Guardian that as long as participants were happy with arrangements, and neither sex was disadvantaged, segregation should be permitted. It appears she is concerned that said Islamist misogynist may have his freedom of speech infringed if his demands for segregated audiences are not adhered to – in which case the Islamist misogynist may not wish to speak.

I am pretty much speechless.

First of all, how on earth does a person choosing not to speak because they don't have their backward medievalism pandered to, have his right to free speech impeded? He doesn't, he chooses not to speak. He will not be physically incapable of opening his mouth at the sight of women and men sitting together.

Secondly, "voluntary segregation" is simply not possible, or plausible. Take this example; if a room is "segregated" and I go in there and decide to sit with the men, will I be moved? If yes, then it is enforced. If I will not be asked to move, then the room is not segregated.

Here we go again with this Orwellian nonsense, designed to confuse.

As I said at the protest last Tuesday, language is being manipulated and abused by Islamists and their enablers to hide the nasty realities of this situation. "Voluntary segregation", "freedom of speech" and "religious freedom" are being thrown about as justifications for turning the clock back and pushing women to the edge yet again.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown quite rightly articulated what is going on here, when she appeared on Channel 4 following Tuesday night's protests. She said that Islamists were using democracy to destroy democracy and she is absolutely right.

This is not news and has been going on for a very long time. Using the language of rights and freedoms, Islamists have succeeded in setting up sharia courts in Britain in which women are treated as sub-human and deserving of violence. It is their "right" to religious freedom to do just that.

Using the language of rights and freedoms, Islamists have set up schools in which young girls are forced to cover themselves entirely lest they unleash their sinfulness on to the world via the crime of visibility. This too is the "right" to religious freedom of the schools' Islamist masters.

University segregation is just another example. Time after time, using the language of freedom, Islamists are turning back the clock. They are testing the waters, and finding out — no doubt to their glee — that where women are concerned, the religious right to despise us will triumph time after time.

In human rights law, there are absolute rights and there are qualified rights. Religious freedom is a qualified right, which thus must be balanced against other competing rights on a case-by-case basis. As you can imagine, women's autonomy and dignity regularly clash with 7th century ideas of accursed temptresses.

At the United Nations recently, a resolution aimed at protecting women's rights campaigners removed the following requirement in order to get Iran, the Vatican, and others to agree. The request that member states "strongly condemn all forms of violence against women and women human rights defenders and refrain from invoking any customs, traditions or religious consideration to avoid their obligations" was wiped away. So the UN (which is proving itself to be increasingly useless in this area) has effectively agreed that violence against women is fine, provided it is in line with religious belief (which it quite often is).

The European Union's Parliament just this week rejected a report on Sexual and Reproductive Rights following intense lobbying by religious groups. MEP Mikael Gustafsson, Chair of the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, said: "I remain ashamed and stunned that so many people still can't see how important sexual and reproductive health and rights are to achieving gender equality in the EU and beyond."

Mr Gustafsson is wrong about that, people can see how important these rights are in the fight for the autonomy and basic human rights of women, but they believe that religious beliefs are more important.

The UN also believes this, as does Universities UK, and the Islamists are lapping it up.

Study finds religious fundamentalism unexpectedly common in Europe

News | Wed, 18th Dec 2013

Religious fundamentalism is not a marginal phenomenon in Western Europe, nor is it restricted to Islam. This conclusion is drawn in a large-scale study published by Ruud Koopmans from the WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

The author analysed data from a representative survey among immigrants and natives in six European countries – Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. The Six Country Immigrant Integration Comparative Survey collected data in more than 9,000 telephone interviews.

The study is the first that allows analysis on an empirical base of the extent and impact of religious fundamentalism.

Two thirds of Muslims interviewed said that religious rules are more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. Three quarters of the respondents held the opinion that there is only one legitimate interpretation of the Koran.

These numbers are significantly higher than those from local Christians: only 13% of this group placed religious rules above national law; just under 20% refused to accept differing interpretations of the Bible.

For Ruud Koopmans, this tendency toward Muslim religious fundamentalism is alarming: "Fundamentalism is not an innocent form of strict religiosity", the sociologist said. "We find a strong correlation between religious fundamentalism — actually among both Christians and Muslims — and hostility toward out-groups like homosexuals or Jews."

Almost 60% of the Muslim respondents rejected homosexuals as friends; 45% thought that Jews cannot be trusted; and an equally large group believed that the West is out to destroy Islam. The Christians' answers for comparison: As many as 9% were openly anti-Semitic; 13% did not want to have homosexuals as friends; and 23% thought that Muslims aim to destroy Western culture.

A critical analysis of the findings by Cas Mudde, assistant professor in the School for Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia appeared in the Washington Post.

She notes that the Koopman's report finds that young Muslims — most of whom are not immigrants, but were born in Western Europe — are as fundamentalist as older Muslims. Ms Mudde said: "This finding goes against the received wisdom that 'immigrants' have assimilated by the third generation; a process that used to hold up for most of the 20^th century, but seems to have changed in the current interconnected world. That said, recent research on French immigrants showed that the fourth generation (which they call '2.5 generation') is much more integrated than the third."

Fundamentalism and out-group hostility – Muslim immigrants and Christian natives in Western Europe by Ruud Koopmans can be read in full here (PDF).

The President’s Broadcasting Year – behind the scenes

Opinion | Thu, 19th Dec 2013

After a busy year as President of the National Secular Society, Terry Sanderson reveals some of his behind-the-scenes moments.

Being President of the National Secular Society is nothing if not unpredictable. And this year has been no exception.

Although we are engaged in a very serious debate about an increasingly frightening problem, there are moments of hilarity and fun.

These are what I want to tell you about here. After all, it is party season and the time when people relax and let their hair down.

One of the things I have to do as spokesperson for the NSS is take part in broadcast interviews. These are usually live, and whatever you might have said to the researcher who originally asked you to take part, you can be sure that when you get on air, the presenter will ask you something completely different. If you aren't quick-witted (and I'm not) this can completely throw you.

And often you have to become an instant expert on topics that are completely unfamiliar to you. I was asked once to take part in a debate on embryo research and its moral implications. I would be up against a religious spokesperson who was implacably opposed to it, said the researcher.

It only occurred to me after I'd said yes to the interview that I knew nothing about the subject.

The programme was to be broadcast the next day and so I spent the night frantically searching online to educate myself about the topic and the arguments for and against.

I could imagine my opponent being someone from the Catholic Church who was terribly au fait with it all, maybe even being a scientist or medical specialist.

When the programme started it rapidly became clear that my opponent was an elderly Hindu gentleman who knew even less about the subject than I did. By the time it was over I felt like a positive expert! Still, I expect Mr Singh slept easier than I did the night before.

There are other times when you have those "you've been framed" moments. It's inevitable occasionally when it's going out live.

I was on a radio programme a couple of months ago commenting on the case of Celestina Mba. You will recall she is the Christian lady who didn't want to work on Sunday. The presenter asked me: "What's the problem with her taking Sundays off?"

I replied: "Well, it isn't very fair on her colleagues, is it, having to work while she is at home having it off."

I could have bitten my tongue, and imagined that, even before the interview was over, someone would have it up on YouTube.

Indeed, another of my broadcasting gaffes did get on YouTube (and no, I will not give a link – it's embarrassing enough having to remember it). It was that Sunday morning ethics programme where people contribute down the line through their Skype connection. I was all set up and ready and the studio had me on hold, but the debate went on and on and I thought that they would run out of time before they got to me.

But suddenly Susanna Reid was saying: "And what do you think about that, Terry Sanderson?"

At that very moment my laptop screen went into sleep mode and all was black. I imagined that I had become disconnected: "Christ, it's broken down," I shouted. Unfortunately, the camera and microphone were still live and my panic-stricken expletive was broadcast to the nation.

Such are the vagaries of live broadcasting, but most of the time it goes smoothly and the secularist message gets out without a hitch. The NSS's various spokespeople have completed more than one hundred radio and TV interviews this year, so we're beginning to know how it works.

One of the interesting aspects of broadcasting is that it brings you into touch with people you might not otherwise meet. Broadcasters often pitch me — and other NSS spokespeople — against bishops and vicars and priests and imams in the hope that they will get a fireworks display of discord. Sometimes they do, but often when I explain what secularism is about, we get agreement. The presenter always seems crestfallen when the bishop says: "I tend to agree with Terry Sanderson on this."

There are some Christians, however, who are not amenable to sense. Stephen Green of Christian Voice is one – I will no longer debate with him, such is his irrational and boorish silliness. Another is Andrea Minichiello Williams – the woman behind the Christian Legal Centre and all those 'persecuted Christian' court cases that rarely get anywhere. Her technique is to get the first word and then keep on talking until she's used up all the time, effectively denying her opponents a say. I now warn presenters of this if I know she's going to be on.

During the Jerry Springer – the Opera controversy a few years ago, I was invited – along with Christian critics – to go to the offices of the Daily Telegraph and watch a preview version of what the BBC planned to broadcast and then comment on it. I found myself sitting next to vicar's wife Anne Atkins, she of the Thought for the Day infamy.

As the Jerry Springer show was played, its notorious bad language was in much evidence. At one point one of the characters sings (very loudly) "F--- You! F--- You!" (He sang it without the dashes).

Anne Atkins turned out to be slightly deaf and was having trouble following the dialogue. She turned to me and asked: "What did he say?" I replied "F--- You, Anne. He said F--- You."

It was something I'd been longing to say to her for many years.

On a debate about faith schools, I was up against a Muslim convert who I chatted to in the green room beforehand. "Why did you convert?" I asked. "Oh, I didn't convert," he said, "Everybody's a Muslim. It's just that some people don't know it yet."

I felt a bit of a chill run through me.

Another incident occurred at Sky News in an interview about the burqa where I was to debate the issue with a veiled woman. She, however, refused to take part in the debate when she discovered it was to be conducted by a male presenter.

The Sky team hurriedly arranged for her to be seated in an adjoining studio and seen on a monitor. She was happy just so long as she wasn't in the company of men.

It seems that the NSS has a message that is increasingly relevant, which is why we are invited to so many debates and broadcasts. The issue of secularism is rising on the political agenda, and it won't be long before politicians — who assiduously avoid it at present — will have to face it square on.

That's when the NSS will show its value. On the thorny question of how religions can live together in a multicultural society, secularism has an excellent and democratic answer.

To make politicians listen, we must keep up the pressure. We need your support to do this. Contributing to message boards is not enough. We need you to make the commitment to membership. January is renewal time for many of our members – why not renew your membership now? You can do it quickly, easily and securely online here.

In the meantime, from the council, staff and volunteers at the NSS, we wish you a very happy festive season and a prosperous New Year (which I hope will be as a proud member of the NSS).

Terry Sanderson was re-elected President of the NSS at last Saturday's AGM.