Trouble reading this email? View newsletter online.

Newsline 20 September 2013

Not a member? If you share our commitment to a secular state, please join today and help us build real pressure for change.

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

We are all at the mercy of the activists who are driving these veil confrontations

We are all at the mercy of the activists who are driving these veil confrontations

Opinion | Tue, 17 Sep 2013

There were calls this week for "a debate on the face veil" after a court and a college were confronted by women who wanted to wear them — even though it was against the rules.

The college backed down within hours of the challenge, cowed by suggestions of racism and religious prejudice from student activist groups. The original reasons for banning face coverings — keeping the college secure — were quickly forgotten when the accusations of Islamophobia started to fly.

The Times reported on the man behind the campaign to overturn the niqab ban, Aaron Kiely, who is now under investigation for a series of inflammatory statements. The paper says:

"He is being investigated after a series of outspoken comments, including his opposition to the deportation of a notorious Islamist extremist and his accusation that the Conservative Party was "whipping up racism".

The left-wing activist is a £23,000-a-year black students' officer for the National Union of Students and is also a Labour councillor in Thurrock, Essex.

Mr Kiely, 24, said that he would oppose the ban on the niqab in any area of public life, and accused opponents of the veil of "whipping up fear and insecurity".

He described any ban on the niqab as "an infringement on the rights to religious freedom and cultural expression and a clear violation of a woman's right to choose".

He was also criticised after describing the "shame" of the deportation of Abu Hamza, the convicted Islamist hate preacher, to the United States. The student leader had previously been forced to apologise after defending the London rioters and accusing the Metropolitan Police of being institutionally racist."

The NSS was asked by the media to comment and we did so widely, sticking to our policy which boils down to this: we don't support any wholesale ban on niqabs or burkas, but we think that it is justifiable for some institutions to place restrictions on them in certain circumstances.

One of those circumstances is in court.

Judge Peter Murphy at Blackfriars court came to a rather dithering conclusion that the woman he was to put on trial for intimidating a witness, and who insisted that she wanted to wear a face covering in the dock, was told that she would only have to take it off if she gave evidence.

In his ruling — full of contradictions as it was — the judge begged parliament or a higher court to give a definitive ruling on the matter. Leaving it to the discretion of individual courts was bound to create complications. He was somewhat flummoxed by the affair and he was sure others would be, too, when faced with the same dilemma and the same pressures.

But the whole thing sparked a debate (at least in the media) that seemed, on the whole, to support the stance we had taken. Commentators generally felt uncomfortable about face coverings. They were anxious about the social consequences for the women wearing them. But, in the end, their liberal instincts won them over to supporting a woman's right to dress as she pleases — except in certain, defined circumstances and situations. There was little stomach for a French-style total ban. (This was not true of the below-the-line communities who seemed a lot less torn, with many in favour of a complete and total outlawing of face-covering veils).

In the Times, Hugo Rifkind wrote about the confusion this debate is creating:

Niqabs are very now. Last week, following a protest,Birmingham's Metropolitan College un-banned the niqab after eight years. Yesterday, a judge in Tower Hamlets decided that a woman should be allowed to stand trial in a veil except for when she gave evidence, when she would be shielded behind a screen. Already, we know what a whole bunch of politicians think about this. All speak with a strange sort of detachment, as though the issue here were a grave and complicated one, with two rational sides. Rather than what it really is, a sexist and perhaps coercive belief that a woman in public ought to have her head in a bag.

Don't flinch from this. By all means, let us debate the reach of the State, and the requirements of tolerance in a multicultural, multifaith society, and all that jazz. But at the heart of this lies the notion that a woman, by virtue of being a woman, ought to be invisible in a public space. That's a notion to which, in my view, we ought to give a big old kick every time we happen to pass it. Few things are less British than the niqab, and few things should be less welcome to a Brit.

Although that doesn't mean we ought to ban it. Well, except for sometimes, when we definitely should. Of course people shouldn't be allowed to cover their faces in airport security or in court. I surprise myself with my own vehemence on this, but there is no doubt in my mind. Yesterday's ruling in Tower Hamlets was hailed as a compromise, but it wasn't one at all. It was a surrender to somebody who was attempting to reject centuries of convention in British courts.

And this final point is perhaps the most important.

Are the women in these two cases simply pious people fighting for their individual religious liberty, or are they really determined activists, deliberately creating confrontations to advance the cause of political Islam?

It wouldn't be the first time. Remember the case of Shabina Begum, the Luton girl who insisted she wanted to wear a long flowing jilbab, in contradiction of the uniform policy of the school she attended?

As it turned out, it wasn't entirely Shabina's idea. She was spurred on by her rather aggressive brother, a member of the extremist group Hizb-uht-Tahrir.

So we must tread carefully so that our liberal impulses are not exploited and misused by people who are far from liberal.

We do need a proper debate, a parliamentary debate, to sort this out and clear up the confusion. We should have clear policies on what is and isn't acceptable in schools (instead of leaving it to individual headteachers to take the heat) and what is and isn't permissible in courts (at the same time saving the exchequer a fortune from judges having to spend time ruling on each case).

If we don't have definitive legislation, these kinds of unpleasant conflicts will continue and the Islamists will exploit them to create more and more resentment among young Muslims in this country.

Unfortunately, this is an issue that the Government is unlikely to tackle. They know it would unleash an almighty backlash not only from Islamists but from the liberals who seem to support them. Parliament would be in the same situation as the rest of us: open to bullying and manipulation by extremists who have us in a corner by using the concept of freedom to take freedom away.

Terry Sanderson is the President of the National Secular Society. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.

The National Secular Society's position statement on the burka can be found here

Why “One of us”, the European anti-choice petition, should be monitored and tackled

Why “One of us”, the European anti-choice petition, should be monitored and tackled

Opinion | Tue, 17 Sep 2013

A statement on the "One of us" petition by Julie Pernet on behalf of the European Humanist Federation.

Launched in May 2012, the European citizens' initiative "One of us" has reached the required number of signatures — 1 million — to be presented to European institutions. Since the creation of this new participatory tool at the EU level, it is the second petition to reach requirements established by the Commission.

What is it (really) for?

This petition aims at protecting "human life in Europe", "Human Dignity of every citizen in the EU" and "defend the life of the weakest", i.e. protect the human embryo from the moment of conception.

More than of a symbolic sacralisation of the human embryo — issue on which the EU has no competence — the petition calls on European institutions to act on very concrete European policies:

First, it calls on a ban of EU funding for human embryonic stem cells (hESC) research even though this funding currently applies only for countries which allow this research (such as Belgium, UK or Sweden); even though it affects 7 days frozen embryos leftover from in vitro fertilization after parents' consent; even though this promising research could help healing a number of degenerative diseases (e.g. Parkinsonism, Huntington's and Alzheimer's diseases, diabetes and heart failures).

Second, it calls on a ban of EU funding for NGOs which provide sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) services in developing countries, even though these services save lives, reduce poverty and increase women's control on their sexuality and body. This initiative is part of a strong lobbying action of several countries and extremist religious organisations (such as European Dignity Watch) which spread misinformation that Europe is paying for pre-selecting children based on gender and forced abortion in poorest countries.

On a more general perspective, this initiative is another mean for conservatives to impose their values at the European level and restrict people's rights and freedom of choice.

Who is behind it?

This initiative is funded by the Italian pro-life organization Fondazione Vita Nova (50 000 euros). It has officially been supported by Pope Francis and is represented by Patrick Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), an Evangelical anti-choice NGO based in Strasbourg (France).

The ECLJ is the European part of the American Centre for Law and Justice and has specialized in litigation at the European Court of Human Rights where it attempts to limit recognition of LGBT's and reproductive rights.

What's next?

"One of us" has until 1st November 2013 to collect more signatures. After a verification of statements of support by national authorities, the initiative will officially be submitted to the European Commission. In the next 3 months, the organisers will have the possibility to meet Commission representatives and present the initiative to Members of the European Parliament. The Commission will then decide whether it proposes an action or not.

If conservatives are fully allowed to use European citizens' initiative to make their concerns heard at the European level, it would be serious backlash if the EU met their requests. Because as a secular entity based on shared principles, the EU cannot ground its policies on religious dogma; because as humanists, we think that freedom of research and women's sexual and reproductive health should be secured within and outside the EU and not be hampered to please anti-choice views.

The EHF calls on decision makers to secure EU funding for hESC research and SRHR when Horizon 2020 and EU budget are voted at European Parliament this autumn.

Julie Pernet is a policy officer at the European Humanist Federation and is reproduced with the permission of the author. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS. The NSS is affiliated to the European Humanist Federation.

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

NSS Speaks Out

The debate provoked by the recent controversies over Muslim women wearing face covering veils brought much publicity for the NSS. We were quoted in Scottish Herald Huffington Post York Press London24 Independent BBC, International Business Times Daily Express Guardian The Sun Daily Mirror Irish Independent The Times (subscription), Financial Times (subscription), Christian Science Monitor Times of Israel New Zealand Herald BBC Radio Tees and dozens of local and regional newspapers. Keith Porteous Wood was also quoted in The Times on the undesirability of forcing girls in Muslim schools to cover their faces as part of the school uniform (subscription) which was picked up by the London Evening Standard and on BBC Radio London 94.9.

Council member Anne Marie Waters was on Sky News and Channel 5 TV.

Terry Sanderson was on BBC Three Counties Radio and Lebanese television.

This email has been sent to you by National Secular Society in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Address: 25 Red Lion Square, London, WC1R 4RL, United Kingdom.
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7404 3126

Please Note: Newsline provides links to external websites for information and in the interests of free exchange. We do not accept any responsibility for the content of those sites, nor does a link indicate approval or imply endorsement of those sites.

Please feel free to use the material in this Newsline with appropriate acknowledgement of source. Neither Newsline nor the NSS is responsible for the content of websites to which it provides links. Nor does the NSS or Newsline necessarily endorse quotes and comments by contributors, they are brought to you in the interests of the free exchange of information and open debate.