Newsline 29 November 2013

Newsline 29 November 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

Feel free to annoy me: new campaign launched to protect free expression

News | Wed, 27th Nov 2013

The National Secular Society has joined together with religious groups and civil liberties campaigners to launch a new campaign to challenge Government proposals to outlaw "annoying" behaviour.

Less than a year after the Lords voted to protect free speech by removing the word "insulting" from Section 5 of the Public Order Act, the Government is introducing a sweeping new anti-social behaviour law that threatens to undermine a wide range of free expression within the public sphere, and could silence protestors, buskers, street preachers and even carol singers.

As with the campaign to remove the word 'insulting' from Section 5 of the Public Order Act, the National Secular Society is working with the Christian Institute and other civil liberty groups under the 'Reform Clause 1: Feel Free To Annoy Me' banner. The campaign will officially launch at the House of Commons on Wednesday 27 November.

The proposed new law is contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. Clause 1 of the bill introduces "Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance" (IPNAs), which seek to suppress anything deemed to be potentially "annoying", however vague the justification. IPNAs will replace Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), which had been introduced under the Labour government.

Whilst in order for an ASBO to be issued, a court has to be satisfied that someone had at least caused or threatened to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" to someone else and that the order was "necessary" to protect the victim, the proposed new law would allow a court to impose sweeping curbs on people's liberty if it thinks they are "capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person", and so long as it is "just and convenient" to do so.

The nuisance or annoyance test used for an IPNA is currently used for Anti-Social Behaviour Injunctions (ASBIs), which were introduced in 2003 specifically for a social housing context. Since ASBIs are housing specific, their scope is automatically limited. Within the broader public order context, this would not be the not the case, and concerns have been expressed that the nuisance or annoyance test encompasses a too-wide range of behaviour, and is too imprecise to allow people to understand what is expected of them. Furthermore, the proposed law includes no defence of 'reasonableness', requires only a civil burden of proof, and would give the police powerful new dispersal powers.

In a formal legal opinion circulated to peers, former Director of Public Prosecutions and Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Macdonald QC, has described the Government's plans for these new civil injunctions as amounting to "gross state interference" with people's private lives and basic freedoms.

He argues that, "the danger in this Bill is that it potentially empowers State interference against annoying activities in the face of shockingly low safeguards." He notes that, in practice, IPNAs could be used against virtually anyone leading to "serious and unforeseeable interferences in individual rights, to the greater public detriment."

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "Clause 1 clearly fails to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the public from anti-social behaviour and protecting essential freedoms. Legislation that criminalises "annoying" behaviour represents a serious threat to public protest and free speech and must not be allowed to pass into law."

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute, commented: "This law will give massive power to the authorities to seek court orders to silence people guilty of nothing more than breaching political correctness or social etiquette."

Campaign groups such Liberty and Justice have also expressed concern about clause 1 of the bill, as has the Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights.

You can follow the campaign on Twitter @ReformClause1 or visit http://reformclause1.org.uk/

See also: Peter Tatchell: Putting up with a degree of annoyance is the price we pay for liberty

Universities can segregate women and men for debates, says university guidance

News | Tue, 26th Nov 2013

A report just published by vice-chancellors' group Universities UK, has 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.

The report, External speakers in higher education institutions, says that universities face a complex balance of promoting freedom of speech without breaking equality and discrimination laws. It seeks to support institutions in managing controversial external speakers on campus, after several recent arguments over their appearances.

Over the past year, there have been a number of reports of segregated seating events at universities. In March, at an event organised by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) and held at UCL, NSS Honorary Associate, Professor Laurence Krauss refused to participate unless the segregation policy was reversed. In April, it was alleged that a sign pointing women and men to separate seating areas was posted on the door of a debate at Leicester University.

Research carried out by Student Rights has found that discrimination through segregation at student events has become an increasing occurrence at many UK universities. Out of the 180 events logged by Student Rights as having radical preachers speaking at them, segregated seating on gender grounds was promoted or implied at more than a quarter of the events, at 21 separate institutions.

The Universities UK report says that the "genuinely-held religious beliefs" of speakers should be considered when deciding whether gender segregation can be defended. It argues that sometimes, by not implementing gender segregation, free speech may be curtailed since speakers who want a segregated audience will no longer want to speak.

It states: "...if imposing an unsegregated seating area in addition to the segregated areas contravenes the genuinely-held religious beliefs of the group hosting the event, or those of the speaker, the institution should be mindful to ensure that the freedom of speech of the religious group or speaker is not curtailed unlawfully".

Whilst the report suggests that segregation on the grounds of gender may be legal, it notes that there is an express prohibition in the Equality Act against segregation on racial grounds.

Universities UK has emphasised the importance of British universities promoting debate and free speech. Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of Universities UK, has said: "The guidance is not about the rights or wrongs of segregating an event by gender. Instead, it highlights the legal and other factors that universities must consider if they are addressing the particular circumstances outlined in this case study. The guidance does not promote gender segregation."

Ms Dandridge described the guidance as "practical" and there to "ensure that as many debates as possible on sensitive and emotive issues can continue to take place. By promoting free speech and open debate the rights or wrongs of gender segregation can be challenged and discussed."

Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, supported the central importance of free speech in universities, but rejected the notion that a speaker's right to free speech should extend to his or her determining that an audience be segregated on gender grounds.

He said, "Provided that they are not inciting violence, provoking a breach of the peace, prejudicing national security or slandering, speakers should be permitted to say whatever they wish, but controversial speech must be accompanied by adequate opportunities for opponents to express their views freely at the same gathering, subject to the same minimal restrictions.

"A commitment to Freedom of Expression does not extend to submitting to speakers imposing their own conditions which are, or should be, contrary to the values of the institution, such as the segregation of audiences, or the refusal to allow questions or challenges."

Christian guest house owners who turned away gay couple lose court appeal

News | Wed, 27th Nov 2013

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by the owners of a guest house after they had been found guilty of discrimination against a gay couple who wanted to stay in a double room.

The court rejected a legal challenge by Peter and Hazelmary Bull who turned away civil partners Martin Hall and Steven Preddy, from their Chymorvah Hotel near Penzance in 2008. The Bulls' claimed they had a policy of not allowing unmarried couples of whatever sex to share double bed rooms, but NSS council member Ray Newton said that he had shared such a room with his (opposite sex) partner at the hotel – even though they aren't married. There was never any question asked about their marital status, even though they signed the register with different surnames.

The Bulls would have been prepared to have accommodated the same sex couple in a twin bedded room, and helped with the finding of alternative accommodation and contributing the additional cost.

Judges had already twice ruled the Bulls broke equality laws in the running of their business. In February, the Court of Appeal upheld a ruling against the Bulls made by Bristol County Court in early 2011. It stated that the Bulls' behaviour amounted to direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and awarded a total of £3,600 damages to Mr Hall and Mr Preddy.

With the support of the Christian Institute, the Bulls then took the case to the Supreme Court where on Wednesday 27 November five justices ruled against them.

Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said: "Sexual orientation is a core component of a person's identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation."

The deputy legal director at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Wendy Hewitt, added: "The courts have been very clear throughout this long-running case that same-sex couples should not be subjected to discrimination when accessing services. This is what Parliament intended when it approved the 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations and then passed the Equality Act 2010, well aware that gay men and lesbians have long suffered discrimination when seeking to stay away from home as a couple."

The Bulls and supporters claim homosexual rights have trumped their religious rights. The judgement could not have refuted that more emphatically: "If Mr Preddy and Mr Hall ran a hotel which denied a double room to Mr and Mrs Bull, whether on the ground of their Christian beliefs or on the ground of their sexual orientation, they would find themselves in the same situation that Mr and Mrs Bull find themselves today."

The Bulls also believe that they should be able to discriminate because this was their "home". The court clearly believed instead that the private hotel was covered by the equality legislation which refers to "accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or similar establishment". The only possible grounds for exemption relate to "religious organisations, as opposed to individuals." The Bulls had considered exploiting that option, prior to closing down their establishment, which followed a downturn in business partly connected to their admissions policy.

The Supreme Court relied in this respect on a key judgement of the Grand Chamber in Bayatyan v Armenia: "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion ... is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. ... That freedom entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion."

The case was decided on the basis that Messrs Hall and Preddy's civil partnership is practically "indistinguishable from the status of marriage", and therefore the Bulls could not discriminate against them while accepting opposite sex married couples. On the other hand, in the words of the judgment: "They are also free to continue to deny double-bedded rooms to same sex and unmarried couples, provided that they also deny them to married couples."

See also: Turning away a gay couple doesn't make you a Christian martyr

School takes action to combat evangelism from external religious visitors

News | Thu, 28th Nov 2013

The board of governors of a community school in Sheffield has voted to strengthen its existing policy on religious visitors following concerns about the agenda of external visitors to the school.

All religious visitors will now be expected to abide by a code of conduct which expressly prohibits prosetelysing or the repeating of religious phrases.

The move follows a lengthy dialogue with school concerning the "long-standing relationship" the school had with the evangelical Christ Church Fulwood, and its role in school activities.

The school's new policy states that no faith, or non-faith (eg. humanist) group will be allowed in to the school more than once in any academic year. Christ Church Fulwood will be still be able to visit the school to lead 'collective worship' once a year in place of the current 6-8 times a year.

The school will continue to provide a 'broadly Christian' worship (as required by law), but this will be provided by school staff in most cases. The school has also made firm commitments to balance the attendance of Church of England Christian faith groups by having Jewish, Muslim and Quaker attendees once a year too.

The school has issued a letter to all parents making clear that the school is a non-faith school and that no special relationship will exist with any Church.

Saul Freeman, a parent with a child at the school, said: "We are very pleased that the school has now adopted an objective, equitable and transparent policy on religious visitors and that an evangelical church will no longer enjoy such easy access to children. But we remain very concerned that the issue had to be pursued at the level of the school. All children, particularly in non-faith schools, should be protected from religious groups seeking to gain influence and converts. This should be a clear and transparent matter of educational policy to ensure that the rights of all children are respected."

Mr Freeman has been invited to a meeting with the Director of the Local Education Authority to discuss what lessons can be learned. Mr Freeman said he will press the LEA to issue clear guidance on external visitors to Sheffield schools.

Saul Freeman's experience with the school was featured in a recent National Secular Society report on evangelism in schools, which called the role of external religious visitors in schools into question.

Responding to the report, Elizabeth Truss, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Education and Childcare, ruled out national guidance, saying schools should be "trusted to observe best practice". She said parents with concerns should raise them with the school and with Ofsted.

Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, said: "We commend the school for taking the necessary steps to try and ensure that the education they provide does not run counter to parents' religious and philosophical beliefs. We hope other schools and local authorities will now question the appropriateness of allowing their schools to be used to further the missionary objectives of religious groups.

"We also congratulate the parents for raising this issue with the school. For too long parents have put up with religion being imposed upon their children, against their wishes. The rights and wishes of all parents are best balanced by schools providing objective education about religion and belief in a religiously neutral environment.

The National Secular Society's report, Evangelism in Schools, can be read here.

Survey reveals schools failing to take religious education seriously

News | Fri, 29th Nov 2013

A third of community schools and over a third of academies without a religious character are failing to meet their legal or contractual agreements to provide religious education, according to a survey published today by The National Association of Teachers of Religious Education (NATRE).

NATRE's research found:

  • 33% of community schools and 35% of academy schools without a religious character say they do not meet their legal requirements to teach RE in Key Stage 4
  • A quarter of all schools (26%) do not offer RE to 14-16 year olds
  • 57% of schools plan to make no GCSE RS Short Course entries, as opposed to 41% in 2012
  • 30% of schools give less than the recommended teaching time of 120-140 learning hours for a Full Course RS GCSE
  • In around a third (31%) of secondary schools, one in five RE lessons are filled by teachers with timetable gaps, rather than expertise and understanding of the subject
  • One in five (20%) community schools and academies without a religious character reported a reduction in the number of specialist staff employed to teach RE. This was in addition to the 24% that reported cuts last year. Academies with a religious character and voluntary aided schools reported cuts of 14%.

RE is a compulsory subject in all English schools, and the only statutory subject that is not part of the National Curriculum. Local authority controlled schools teach a syllabus determined by local committees, largely dominated by religious representatives. Schools and academies with a religious character (faith schools) are free to teach their own syllabus – which may be confessional in nature.

NATRE say the subject has been "edged out" of schools by government reforms, and is using the research to lobby the government for additional resources and strengthened provision of RE.

However, the National Secular Society has called for serious reform of RE to make the subject relevant.

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "Without any clear educational purpose, it is not surprising that many schools fail to take religious education seriously.

"Education about religion and belief needs to be revitalised by scrapping the dated concept of RE and replacing it with a new objective National Curriculum subject for all pupils. To develop young people's understanding of the world we live in, pupils should be equipped not only with a good understanding of a range of faith perspectives and world religions, but also of non-religious beliefs and secular ethics. A reformed subject would enable young people to take a more balanced approach to the consideration of moral and ethical issues.

"Rather than allowing the Church of England and other faith groups to dictate what is taught in schools, any subject covering religion and belief should be devised by the same process as other National Curriculum subjects. It goes without saying that faith schools should lose their ability to teach about religion from their own exclusive viewpoint."

The National Secular Society's position on RE is set out in full here.

Head teacher apologises after ordering pupils to attend Islam awareness trip or face punishment for 'racism'

News | Sat, 23rd Nov 2013

A head teacher has been forced to apologise after threatening to punish children for racism if they missed a religious awareness workshop.

Parents of children at Littleton Green Community School in Cannock were angered by a letter sent from the school informing them that a 'racial discrimination note' would be attached to their child's education record if they did not attend a workshop about Islam as part of the children's "cultural education".

Donna Ward, whose daughter attends the school, told the Express & Star: "It's not our religion. We should have a right to stop our children going."

Defending the decision, the school's head teacher, Lynn Small, said that exposing the pupils to other faiths was part of the school's statutory duty. She said: "We are a mainly Christian school, but we have to cover at least one other religion as part of the national curriculum."

After an intervention from the local authority the school has since written to parents to apologise for "inaccuracies" in the previous correspondence. In the letter, the school's head teacher asked parents to "on reflection disregard a section from the earlier letter."

Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, said: "It is useful for young people to understand the significance of religion in society, and the importance of faith to many people.

"However, many parents are concerned about the way education about religion is currently handled in schools, and it is not uncommon for them to face difficulties when attempting to exercise their right to withdraw.

"We find parents are often unjustifiably accused of 'bigotry' for wanting to withdraw their children from biased RE classes, but the conflation of race with religion in this particular case is particularly disturbing."

THE ORIGINAL LETTER IN FULL:

Dear Parent/Carer,

As part of the National Religious Education Curriculum together with the multicultural community in which we live, it is a statutory requirement for Primary School aged children to experience and learn about different cultures.

The workshop is at Staffordshire University and will give your child the opportunity to explore other religions.

Children will be looking at religious artefacts similar to those that would be on display in a museum. they will not be partaking in any religious practices.

Refusal to allow your child to attend this trip will result in a Racial Discrimination note being attached to your child's education record, which will remain on this file throughout their school career.

As such our expectations are that all children in years 4 and 6 attend school on Wednesday 27th November to take part in this trip.

All absences on this day will be investigated for their credibility and will only be sanctioned with a GP sick note.

If you would like to discuss this further please contact our RE Coordinator, Mrs Edmonds.

Eric Pickles is doling out taxpayers’ money to ‘faith groups’ – where will it end?

Opinion | Wed, 27th Nov 2013

Mr Cameron gave Eric Pickles permission with the "Big Society" project. But we are going to have to ensure that he doesn't make the Big Society into one where only "people of faith" can contribute or benefit, argues Terry Sanderson.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether Communities Secretary Eric Pickles is speaking from parliament or a pulpit. He seems to be going on about "faith" every time he opens his mouth. He has set himself up as the champion of Christianity, defending it from its supposed persecutors and making sure it is brought into the political fold at every opportunity.

Today the Daily Telegraph reports that in an "impromptu address" at the launch of the Westminster Abbey Institute, Mr Pickles said to "an audience of politicians and churchmen" that people in public life should "never be made to feel they must apologise for speaking about their faith."

He urged them to litter their speeches with references to the Book of Common Prayer.

The Westminster Abbey Institute describes itself as being "founded to foster faith in public life, among those working around Parliament Square and beyond."

The Telegraph claims that "Mr Pickles, who last year changed the law to ensure that councils could not face legal challenges for including prayers in public meetings, accused the previous Labour Government of "diminishing Christianity" by suggesting that religion and politics could not mix."

This makes Eric Pickles sound like a dictator on the lines of Stalin who could change inconvenient laws unilaterally. Fortunately, he does not have the powers of a dictator and he did not change any law. His claim that the Localism Act permits councils to ignore the High Court ruling is completely untested and extremely dubious legally.

"We pray every day with God Save the Queen – and I think we remain a Christian country. And if you take that Christianity away from people in public life is in a way to diminish them – because a person of faith whether a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu or a Jew or Jain, that's what makes them what they are, that's what makes them tick."

Mr Pickles insisted that Britain"is still a Christian country" despite all the evidence to the contrary. Indeed, an article by David Voas, professor of population studies at Essex University, published only today asked the question: "Is Christianity dying in Britain?" and concludes — after examining the evidence rather than just making it up from wishful thinking — "In short, religious belief, and the importance that people attach to those beliefs, has declined just as fast as attendance and affiliation." And as we know, attendance has declined catastrophically.

Mr Pickles also said that faith could help motivate people into public service. "For most people … whether they are Members of Parliament, or councillors or somebody involved with a local Scout group, public service is about putting something back in," he said.

This is not the first time in the past few days that Mr Pickles has made claims about Christian public service. He announced this week that the Department for Community and Local Government (DCLG) is funding £200,000-worth of grants exclusively for "faith-based groups" for unspecified "community projects".

The Together in Service project will dole out grants from £2,000 to £5,000 "to support faith groups in undertaking new multi-faith volunteering projects at local level." However, although applicants will be required to apply non-discrimination policies to their projects, the organisers seem to have forgotten to include "sexual orientation" on the list. (See grant application pack available here)

The Department for Communities and Local Government, which Eric Pickles heads, assured a journalist who enquired that there was no discrimination intended against LGBT people. "In fact, they say they will only fund groups that have a proper equal opportunities policy in place, so no bar on LGBT groups if they meet the grant requirements," the journalist told me. "They say that the equality monitoring requirements cover only 'ethnicity, faith groups, gender and disabilities', because that is the feedback info most relevant to the aims of Together in Service. Basically, they're not asking for reports from successful applicants on sexual orientation just as they're not asking for reports on age or marital status (which are also protected characteristics)."

Together in Service will run for 2 years and will be delivered by FaithAction, a national network of faith-based and community organisations. Faith Action itself has been awarded £6 million to teach English to immigrants.

The DCLG says Together in Service "will be based around an ongoing calendar of faith-based volunteering around chosen themes relating to religious festivals or celebrations. Every month there will be a focus on the volunteering that the featured faith undertakes by itself, for example Harvest Festival, celebrated by the Christian faith or Mitzvah Day which is run by the Jewish community. The programme will then feature multi-faith projects, where the lead faith has joined up with other religions to deliver voluntary work."

Speaking at the launch at Westminster Cathedral Hall, Eric Pickles said: "Faith groups are united in their desire to make things better for the good of the whole community. Volunteers tirelessly dedicate millions of hours each year to strengthen our society from the simple acts of kindness such as visiting the elderly, to collecting for the needy or helping to clear up the local park.

"Our faiths, our community and our society are stronger by far when they join up and Together in Service will not only strengthen the existing work carried out by faith groups but will encourage people of all faiths and none to roll up their sleeves and get stuck into wider volunteering."

Projects that apply for funding will have to match the amount requested, engage with other 'faith groups' and have to prove that they are monitoring equality issues "covering ethnicity, faith groups, gender and disabilities."

Of course, we have no problem with "faith groups" (or secular groups) using public money to do work that truly benefits the whole community. But the way that Together in Service is described seems to indicate that it is going to be some sort of multi-faith jamboree, rather than something of use to the wider community.

Using hard-pressed taxpayers' money to celebrate harvest festivals or mitzvahs is not a benefit to the community, it is a benefit to the church or temple or mosque.

We suspect that the pious Mr Pickles has only just started on his plans to dole out public cash to religious groups. He thinks they are intrinsically worthy because they promote a world view that he happens to share. Mr Cameron gave him permission with the "Big Society" project, but we are going to have to keep a wary eye on Mr Pickles to ensure that he doesn't make the Big Society into one where only "people of faith" can contribute or benefit.

Baroness Warsi and the OIC

Opinion | Mon, 25th Nov 2013

Baroness Warsi's partnership with the OIC means it is only a matter of time before we are completely silenced in the name of religious freedom, argues Anne Marie Waters.

Baroness Warsi, our unelected "Minister for Faith", in a speech at Georgetown University in Washington on Friday, stated that the UK is "committed to working with the United Nations Human Rights Council to implement Resolution 16/18."

We are? I can't remember agreeing to this – can you?

She then went on to make this hilarious statement: "The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) also remains a key partner in our quest to promote religious freedom."

I genuinely don't know whether to laugh or cry.

It is difficult to know where to begin with this, so I'll start with Resolution 16/18 – a proposal which received the support of the United States back in 2011. Hillary Clinton, who could well be the next US President, set up a meeting in Washington D.C. that year. The aim of this get-together was to explore ways to implement the provisions of Resolution 16/18 around the world.

Resolution 16/18 calls upon UN member states to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief." It was initially introduced in March 2011 at the UN Human Rights Council by the OIC. This coterie, dominated by Islamist states, had made several previous attempts to have a resolution passed which aimed to criminalise "defamation of religions" but had failed. This time, due to some clever re-wording, the tactic worked and non-binding resolution was agreed.

Following this, the Istanbul Process was created in July 2011. This meeting was attended by Hillary Clinton who praised the US and the EU for agreeing the resolution at the Human Rights Council. The conference had been convened by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the OIC. This is a man who frequently speaks out against Islamophobia, and calls for a "proper understanding of Islam".

The Istanbul Process continues and last met in Geneva in June 2013.

Baroness Warsi's commitment (on behalf of the UK) to work with the OIC to implement Resolution 16/18 seems to be grounded in the idea that the OIC are equally committed to religious freedom. In making such claims, Warsi shows herself to be either a) completely stupid, b) a damn liar, or c) both.

Why do I say this? Well, have a look at the commitment to religious freedom (and human rights generally) demonstrated by some of the OIC member countries:

The Islamic Republic of Iran – Iran demonstrates its commitment to religious freedom by executing people who leave Islam, or speak out against it. (Oh, and it also stones people to death for having sex). Article 513 of theIranian penal code states that "Anyone who insults the sacred values of Islam or any of the Great Prophets or [twelve] Shi'ite Imams or the Holy Fatima, if considered as Saab ul-nabi [as having committed actions warranting the hadd punishment for insulting the Prophet], shall be executed; otherwise, they shall be sentenced to one to five years' imprisonment."

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan – Pakistan is also deeply committed to religious freedom. So much so that blasphemy is a capital crime. Section 295-C of its criminal code says that "Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – as well as imposing the death penalty for "witchcraft" (and blasphemy and apostasy), Saudi Arabia does not allow anyone to build a church or read a Bible. So committed to religious freedom is Saudi Arabia that non-Muslims are not permitted to enter its holy city of Mecca. So committed to religious freedom is Saudi Arabia that simply sending a tweet deemed blasphemous can have you arrested and facing the death penalty, as the journalist Hamza Kashgari found out to his cost in 2012.

These are some of the countries that Baroness Warsi will be working with to promote religious freedom around the world. There are others of course, you can find them here.

It is worth noting at this point that the UN Human Rights Council, which initially passed Resolution 16/18, recentlyappointed Saudi Arabia to sit on its board. Saudi Arabia kills people not only for blasphemy but for adultery and homosexuality as well. Women there enjoy the official status of property and are not allowed to work or travel or even undergo medical treatment without the permission of a man. It's encouraging to know then that Saudi Arabia will be working for the promotion of both religious freedom and human rights around the world, isn't it?

We are living in a hall of mirrors – nothing is as it seems and we are being consistently and constantly lied to. Resolution 16/18 has got nothing to do with religious freedom, and everything to do with protecting Islam from exposure. The record of the countries behind it prove this beyond any doubt. Anyone who tells the truth about any aspect of Islam, or what happens in Islamic states, will no doubt be guilty of "negative stereotyping" of the religion, and criminalised if Resolution 16/18 becomes law in UN member states. That is the point of it, and Warsi has dragged our country in to helping to make this happen.

So to summarise; Sayeeda Warsi, a woman who failed to secure an elected place in Parliament in 2005, now enjoys a seat at the Cabinet table despite the fact that she remains unelected. She has used this position to commit the UK to assisting in the implementation of a resolution which will effectively criminalise anyone who dares to tell the truth about what happens in the name of Islam (this would be "negative stereotyping" you see). She has no mandate for this, and she wouldn't have if the people were ever asked our opinion on the matter.

She is assisted in her endeavours by the US Government. A Government headed by Barack "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" Obama.

Warsi was appointed to the Cabinet by David Cameron, a man equally committed to making us as sharia-compliant as possible. In October, he informed us that we were about to become the only non-Muslim country to issue Islamic bonds. The Prime Minister's ambition is to see London stand "alongside Dubai as one of the great capitals of Islamic finance anywhere in the world."

Given the determination of the USA and UK to promote all things Islamic, and their partnership with Islamist states in their efforts to criminalise us all, it is only a matter of time before we are completely silenced.

So if you have anything to say about Islam — and the barbarism carried out in its name — I suggest you say it now.

Leader of Russian Orthodox Church says it is dangerous to unite state and church while Putin declares Russia a secular state

News | Tue, 26th Nov 2013

Patriarch Kirill, leader of the Russian Orthodox Church has said that there is no question of the church and state uniting in Russia.

"The Church is defending its freedom because it is sure that only its independence gives it the possibility of being a full-scale spiritual authority. Any form of convergence of the Church and state is dangerous for the cause of God. Only the word of a free Church sounds loud and convincingly," he said in an interview with Smolenskiye Novosti newspaper.

He has repeatedly denied that church and state are becoming too closely aligned, saying that clergymen are strictly forbidden from assuming any government functions while, at the same time, the state does not have direct influence over the Church.

"We don't want the repetition of history because we are convinced that the bloody developments of the beginning of the 20th century and the persecution of the Church that followed them largely resulted from its enslavement by the state" Kirill said.

He stressed that the Church is not trying to influence politics, although judging by recent events this is arguable. He said it only addressed the political issues while "trying to bring it home to every person that life without God is senseless and useless."

The patriarch also recognised that Russia is still experiencing the effects of the period of atheism during the Soviet era. "In order to cure the spiritual wound inflicted by atheism we should all help people take the path of new church-going. And I believe that God will be with us on this road," he said, adding that the current church reforms are being conducted with this purpose.

Earlier this year President Vladimir Putin said that Russia was a secular state and that church and state were distinct entities. At the same time he said that the nation would be based on Christian values. He then said that he wanted to ban hijabs in schools and ban discussion of homosexuality (at the behest of the Orthodox Church) "People in many European countries are ashamed, and are afraid of talking about their religious convictions. [Religious] holidays are being taken away or called something else, shamefully hiding the essence of the holiday", the "secularist" Russian president added.

See also: Putin kisses Madonna icon at Vatican

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)