Newsline 27 March 2015

Newsline 27 March 2015

Not a member? The most tangible way of supporting our work is by becoming a member and contributing funds to enable us to campaign effectively; the more we have, the more we can do. If you believe, as we do, that a secular Britain is our best chance to achieve true equality for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, then please join us and become part of what is possibly the most important debate of the 21st century. Together we can create a fairer and more equal society.

News, Blogs & Opinion

Boris Johnson describes bishops in the House of Lords as “clerical fossils”

News | Tue, 24th Mar 2015

London Mayor Boris Johnson has described Anglican bishops with the automatic right to a seat in the House of Lords as "clerical fossils."

Speaking to LBC, the Conservative politician discussed the separation of church and state in the UK and said that the division "is not perhaps as thoroughgoing in this country as you might like to think."

The Mayor told listeners, "don't forget we have bishops sitting by right in our upper house" and added that it was an "an interesting fact" that the UK has "some clerical fossils still in our legislature."

In recent months bishops in the House of Lords have opposed mitochondrial donation, and they opposed equal marriage legislation in 2013.

Twenty-six bishops, including two archbishops, currently have the automatic right to a seat in the House of Lords. The National Secular Society, which campaigns against religious privilege, welcomed the Mayor's comments.

NSS campaigns manager, Stephen Evans, commented: "It's refreshing to hear a politician advocating for the principle of the separation of church and state. We see all around the world the conflict that is created when religion and government are entwined.

"The position of the bishops in the House of Lords means that they have privileged access to the political process and the ability to vote on laws that apply to us all. Britain is incredibly religiously diverse and many of us don't hold or practise any religious beliefs. Mr Johnson is therefore right to recognise that our political structures should reflect the reality of changing times by separating religion from the state.

The Mayor's comments came in response to a question about sharia 'courts' operating in the UK.

Mr Johnson warned of what he called a "system running in parallel with UK justice". He said: "Everybody must be equal under the law, and everybody must obey the same law. That is absolutely cast-iron."

He was very critical of previous comments on sharia made by some Anglicans, and took what he called "grave exception" to support for sharia tribunals. Mr Johnson noted that "clerics in the Church of England… [have] said we should be a little bit indulgent" about sharia law and he said "I won't have it."

The Mayor added: "I'm worried sometimes by the faint bat-squeaks of support that I hear for that idea even from clerics in the Church of England."

Former Archbishop Rowan Williams argued in 2008 that the introduction of some elements of sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".

Mr Johnson argued that religious arbitration tribunals "cannot replace" civil proceedings.

He said that if people "want to have some ceremonial proceeding according to religious ritual or whatever, that is fine. But the actual implementation of the law has got to be done in British courts according to British law, agreed by Parliament.

"That is where the law emanates from. The law emanates in the end from people voting for MPs who enact the statutes which we all obey. That gives this country a vital equality."

The Mayor was speaking the day after Home Secretary Theresa May promised a review of how sharia courts operate in the UK, which was welcomed by secularists.

Mr Evans added: "Secularism is much maligned by those seeking to maintain religious privilege by supporting a multi-faith approach, but secularism remains the only sensible framework for ensuring that all citizens' personal freedoms of religion or belief and conscience are equally respected."

NSS welcomes pledge to review ‘sharia courts’

News | Mon, 23rd Mar 2015

The National Secular Society has welcomed an announcement from Home Secretary Theresa May that a future Conservative government would launch a review into so-called 'sharia courts' operating in the UK.

The Home Secretary said that there was evidence of women being left destitute after being 'divorced' under Islamic law without the legal protections offered by being in a legally-recognised marriage and warned of "wives who are forced to return to abusive relationships because sharia councils say a husband has a right to chastise" them.

Mrs May noted that sharia councils gave the testimony of a woman "only half the weight" of that of a man.

She added that on sharia law the UK "knows enough to know we have a problem" but that we could not yet gauge the full extent of the issue.

The Home Secretary set out plans to commission an independent figure to "lead an investigation into the application of sharia law" in Britain.

The plan was welcomed by the National Secular Society which has warned against the advancement of 'sharia courts' and religious tribunals in Britain.

NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans said: "We have long argued that the state needs to better tackle the numerous problems caused by sharia being used as a basis for alternative dispute resolution.

"Many vulnerable people are left unaware of their rights and without access to the justice system. They are left with the impression that sharia courts actually have authority – which they do not.

"Sharia is discriminatory against women, and it is women who disproportionately bear the brunt of regressive rulings issued by these religious councils. Without recourse to outside support services, many women become trapped in insular religious communities without access to outside help – undermining both their legal and political equality."

However, despite welcoming the Home Secretary's plans, Mr Evans said that the Government's massive increase in court fees and reduction of the legal aid budget had played into the hands of those advocating Sharia alternatives.

In December 2014, AURAT, a charity which helps victims of honour-based domestic violence, published a report on sharia marriages in the UK which highlighted the stories of women who had faced serious discrimination and poverty as a result of Islamic 'marriages' being ended by their husbands.

The NSS warned of the dangers posed to women by Nikah Islamic marriages, which have no legal force, and which leave women seriously disadvantaged and without the legal protections that come with legally-recognised marriages. Women reported being left without rights to the family home and property, and with "no recourse" to compensation after husbands, many of whom had other 'wives', left them.

The NSS has been supporting the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill, sponsored by cross-bench Baroness Cox, which would make arbitration services in the UK subject to equality laws and make it a criminal offence for a sharia tribunal to claim to have legal jurisdiction over criminal or family law.

Commenting on the problems raised by sharia tribunals, Baroness Cox said in 2014: "I went to a divorce hearing … in a sharia court in the East End of London. The room was arranged just like a courtroom, with three men sitting up behind a bench looking down on us. The woman in question was intimidated into silence because, as she told me later, she believed it was a proper constituted court."

The Bill was introduced in 2011 and had a successful second reading debate in the House of Lords, and has been re-introduced this term but will fall when Parliament is prorogued for the General Election.

Theresa May's proposal to review 'sharia courts' came in a wide-ranging speech unveiling a package of comprehensive measures to tackle Islamic extremism. She urged UK Muslims to help in the struggle against jihadist ideology and compared the struggle against extremism to that undertaken against racism.

The Home Secretary called for a strong civil society response to extremism, and set out proposals to prevent future governments from "unwittingly" lending legitimacy to extremist organisations. She warned of "entryist tactics" used by extremists.

She also criticised "self-appointed and unrepresentative community leaders" and said that the Government should engage with people "directly" and through elected representatives, rather than through self-appointed leadership figures.

Street preacher fined for using “abusive” language after quoting Leviticus

News | Mon, 23rd Mar 2015

Street preacher Michael Overd has been found guilty of using "threatening" or "abusive" words after making homophobic remarks during a sermon delivered in Taunton High Street.

Overd was ordered to pay £250 to a passer-by who had been offended by the preacher's comments, and he initially refused, at which point judge Shamim Qureshi threatened the preacher with a prison sentence. He has been ordered to pay total costs of £1200.

Overd intends to appeal his conviction and said "I follow my Lord and leader, so I won't tone down."

The street preacher was charged with a public order offence, after complaints were made by members of the public that he had made homophobic and 'Islamophobic' remarks.

The sermons were delivered in June and July of 2014.

The BBC reports that the judge "told the preacher he seemed to enjoy testing the laws on free speech to their limits."

Mr Overd was also told "that he should not have quoted from Leviticus 20:13 when speaking about homosexuality," according to Christian Today, who also report that "the judge suggested that there were other verses he could have chosen if he wanted to talk about what the Bible says about homosexuality."

Judge Qureshi also works as a 'judge' for the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which aims to help Muslims "resolve disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law."

In an interview with Premier Christian Radio, Overd said that Britain no longer "recognises the Bible" and said that his conviction "sadly" represented where the UK was "concerning sodomy and lesbianism."

He railed against "liars, thieves, drunkards, fornicators" and said that "Jesus offended people" and that Jesus was a "very offensive man."

Overd said "we're all sinners, that's what the Bible says. I am as well." He added that "God says" Muslims and homosexuals were "hell-bound" because they "denied the truth of the Bible" for breaking the commandments of God.

The preacher said he was "proclaiming the truth of the Gospel."

Mr. Overd was found not guilty on two other charges, which included "causing racially or religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress" after he made critical remarks about the Muslim Prophet Mohammed.

During the trial one witness said "I am all for free speech but not at the expense of [belittling] someone" and another said that Overd had made "defamatory comments" about the Prophet Mohammed.

The National Secular Society has previously raised concerns about the trial's implications for free speech.

Terry Sanderson, NSS president, said the ruling appeared to make the quoting of certain passages of the Bible illegal.

"Whilst we all want to encourage public civility, there is a higher principle at stake. As long as there is no incitement to violence, then people should be allowed to speak freely without fearing legal repercussions."

Jordan proposes ban on “insults to religions” at next Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting

News | Wed, 25th Mar 2015

Jordan has introduced an emergency item to the next meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, calling for a ban on insulting religion or religious symbols.

The draft resolution says insults to religion represent a "danger to all humanity."

The Speaker of Jordan's House of Representatives has written to the Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) to introduce an emergency item titled "respect for religions and religious symbols, respect for freedom of opinion and expression."

Although the title feigns acknowledgment freedom of opinion and expression, the resolution does nothing of the kind.

The IPU is the international organization of parliaments and describes itself as "the focal point for world-wide parliamentary dialogue" and "works for peace and co-operation among peoples and for the firm establishment of representative democracy."

The draft resolution argues insulting religion feeds "religious extremism and fanaticism, terrorism and violence" and says that a way to "remedy the problem" is to "promote mutual respect among believers".

The memorandum says: "Insults to religions and religious symbols are uncivilized actions that have very serious consequences on all humanity, as they prevent the meeting of minds and dialogue and feed religious extremism and fanaticism, terrorism and violence.

"The followers of Islam acknowledge the existence of other religions. Islam also gives the followers of those religions the right to exercise their religious practices freely within Islamic States, and regards non-Muslims as citizens and an integral thread in the fabric of the nation.

"Freedom of opinion and expression should not be used as a pretext for insulting others' lives, reputations, religions, holy shrines or practices. In today's world, the term 'religious symbols' refers to prophets, places of worship and holy books. As a gesture of commitment, the religion of Islam obliges all its followers to believe in and respect all prophets, and to believe in holy books."

The Speaker has also called for an "international convention to prevent disrespect for religions and religious symbols."

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said the resolution was the latest in a long line of attempts to impose a global blasphemy law and called for it to be "fiercely resisted".

Free speech campaign organisation Article 19 have denounced the proposal and warned that it would "legitimise criminal prohibitions on religious insult or so-called 'defamation of religions'" and warned that the introduction of prohibitions on insulting religion must be resisted in other international forums, after campaign groups saw recent success in seeing off attempts to introduce de facto blasphemy bans at the UN.

A woman in Afghanistan was recently beaten to death by a mob in central Kabul, after she was accused of burning a copy of the Koran. A large crowd cheered while men kicked her on the ground and pelted her with rocks. Her body was then set on fire and thrown into a river.

The NSS has recently warned of attempts by groups in the UK to introduce blasphemy norms. The Muslim Action Forum, which protested outside Downing Street with a banner reading "be careful with Mohammed", claims to have launched a "legal strategy" in the UK to stop publication of insults to Mohammed to and to promote what they call "global civility."

“Sodomite Suppression Act” proposed by US Christian lawyer

News | Thu, 26th Mar 2015

A California lawyer has proposed a "Sodomite Suppression Act" and warned of "God's just wrath" should the state of California not put homosexuals to death.

The lawyer who is proposing the legislation, Matt McLaughlin, says "buggery" and "sodomy" are an "abominable crime against nature" and a "monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction".

McLaughlin is calling for homosexuals to be executed "by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."

The Sodomite Suppression Act warns that "any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death" and that no person may "distribute, perform, or transmit sodomistic propaganda."

It adds: "Sodomistic propaganda is defined as anything aimed at creating an interest in or an acceptance of human sexual relations other than between a man and a woman. Every offender shall be fined $1 million per occurrence, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.

"No person shall serve in any public office, nor serve in public employment, nor enjoy any public benefit, who is a sodomite or who espouses sodomistic propaganda or who belongs to any group that does."

The proposal contains a clause that the law may not be invalidated "until heard by a quorum of the Supreme Court of California consisting only of judges who are neither sodomites nor subject to disqualification hereunder.

"Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."

McLaughlin must now collect over 350,000 signatures for his proposed ballot initiative in order for it to actually appear on the ballot paper. However, the California Attorney General is seeking permission from a state court to reject the proposed initiative.

There is currently a petition with over 51,000 signatures to have McLaughlin disbarred by the California Bar Association, in response to his voter initiative.

Whilst this proposal is almost certain not to be seen by voters on the ballot paper in 2016, it is not the only piece of anti-LGBT legislation currently being discussed.

Indiana has recently passed a 'religious freedom' bill that would allow discrimination against homosexuals. The American Civil Liberties Union said the legislation appears "to invite the use of religion to discriminate, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity."

The Belfast Telegraph compared the legislation to the 'conscience' bill in Northern Ireland that is being pushed by the DUP, in response to the Ashers bakery case, which is currently being heard in court.

NSS Speaks Out

Executive director Keith Porteous Wood was quoted in The Economist on the case of Michael Overd, a street preacher convicted and fined this week under the 1986 Public Order Act for using "threatening or abusive language" in a sermon. NSS president Terry Sanderson was also quoted on the case in Pink News and in The Freethinker. Communications officer Benjamin Jones was quoted in Christian Today discussing the case's implications for free speech.

NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans was also quoted in Christian Today discussing the passage of the council prayers bill through parliament. He also had a letter published in reply to an extraordinary rant from a vicar complaining of an 'anti-religious secularist agenda' in his weekly column for the Hinckley Times.

The Christian Institute noted the NSS' concerns about Extremism Disruption Orders.