Newsline 31 January 2014

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

	Censorship on Channel 4 News: an open letter to the editor News \| Wed, 29th Jan 2014 The National Secular Society has written to the editor of Channel 4 News to express its concern over a decision to censor a cartoon depiction of the Prophet Mohammad during its broadcast on Tuesday 28 January. The letter reads as follows: Dear Mr de Pear, Editor, Channel 4 News We are writing in response to a package presented by news correspondent Katie Razzall, on Tuesday 28 January 2014, which looked at the controversy surrounding Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate, Maajid Nawaz, and his recent tweeting of a Jesus & Mo cartoon. We were surprised and extremely disappointed to see that Channel 4 News took the decision to cover up the image of Mohammed when showing the Jesus & Mo cartoon, and we are thus keen to elicit the rationale behind that particular editorial decision. During the report, it was noted that this decision was taken so as not to cause offence to some viewers; however we would like to point out that by your making this decision you have effectively taken a side in a debate where a Muslim man has suffered violent death threats after he explicitly said he did not find the cartoons offensive. You have taken the side of the reactionaries - the side of people who bully and violently threaten Muslims, such as Mr Nawaz, online. By redacting the picture of 'Mo', you have contributed to a climate of censorship brought on by the unreasonable and reactionary views of some religious extremists. Rather than defending free expression, one of the most precious pillars of our liberal democratic society, you have chosen instead to listen to extremists and patronise British Muslims by assuming they will take offence at an irreverent and satirical cartoon. By taking the decision you did, not only did you betray the fundamental journalistic principle of free speech, but you have become complicit in a trend that seeks to insidiously stereotype all Muslim people as reacting in one uniform way (generally presented as overly sensitive and potentially violent). Given that your editorial decision seems to be have been weighted by a concern with offence, we might also note that you ended up with a report that was, in fact, very offensive to many; offensive to those who take seriously and cherish our basic freedom to speak and question, and offensive to many Muslims, whose voices you do not hear because you insist on placating the reactionary voices of people claiming to represent what it is to be an 'authentic Muslim'. In the subsequent interview with Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, presenter Jon Snow made the point that there are a number of places in the world where blasphemy is punished by death. This reality provides an apposite backdrop to the whole debate and, by extension, Channel 4's decision to censor. In a world where the notion of offence to those with religious views is being used to control and punish people of all religions and none, the UK has an urgent responsibility to uphold freedom of expression in the face of religious extremism. Its news outlets share in this responsibility. Whilst we understand that you covered both sides of the issue through your report and subsequent interview, we were keen to highlight the dangerous precedent you have set by taking the editorial decision to censor the Jesus & Mo cartoon, and the deeply symbolic implications that decision has. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter. We are considering this an open letter. Yours sincerely, National Secular Society
	Channel 4 defends censorship of Jesus and Mo cartoon News \| Thu, 30th Jan 2014 Channel 4 has responded to criticism of its censorship of the Jesus & Mo cartoon by saying it did not want to cause offence to its audience. Rather than respond directly to an open letter from the National Secular Society, Channel 4 replied with a standard letter sent to all those who complained about its redaction of the cartoon depiction of the Prophet Mohammad. The letter, from Steve Reynolds of Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries, reads: As we are sure you can appreciate, this is a very sensitive subject for many viewers. Channel 4 News editorial staff gave great consideration to the issues involved and believe that they reached a fair and balanced judgement, weighing up the potential for offence to some viewers by showing the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed and the necessity of showing the cartoon in full. The senior editorial team decided that the showing of the entire illustration, whilst likely to cause offence, was not integral to the story, and therefore took the decision to pixelate. Whilst we acknowledge your views, we believe that on balance this was the correct decision and as a rule, where we consider the likelihood of significant offence to our audience, we will attempt to mitigate against that. As to not pixelating the image of Jesus, it was not felt that the same level of offence was likely to be provoked as the image is commonly depicted in cartoon form. We appreciate you taking the time to contact us and be assured your comments have been logged for the information of our News team. Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, commented: "The claim that showing the entire illustration was 'not integral to the story' is ludicrous. It was the story. The truth is that Channel 4, like so many others, is intimidated and afraid of the reaction from violent extremists. Such extremists have got this country in a fearful stranglehold that is gradually destroying our commitment to freedom of speech. We may have abolished the blasphemy law, but who needs it when the same effect can be achieved by terrorising people?" Mr Sanderson said that Channel 4 should be ashamed of itself for capitulating in this way to supposed 'sensitivities' that it does not respect in any other context. "Channel 4 does not hesitate to create controversy and offence in its other output, indeed it prides itself on doing so." Meanwhile, the Muslim Association of Britain is now attempting to work this controversy up into a similar level as the Danish cartoon controversy by issuing a condemnation of the cartoon. Download a copy of the National Secular Society's letter to Channel 4 (PDF)
	University Islamic Society tries to stop talk because speaker didn’t condemn Maajid Nawaz News \| Wed, 29th Jan 2014 Students from the University of Plymouth's Islamic Society failed in their efforts to get a speaker from the anti-extremist think tank Quilliam banned this week. They wanted his talk cancelled because he failed to condemn Maajid Nawaz's tweeting of the Jesus and Mo cartoon. The talk by Sheikh Dr Usama Hasan, a senior researcher in Islamic Studies at Quilliam was on the topic of Islam and democracy in the wake of the Arab Spring. But the Islamic Society organised a protest, attended by about 30 people, claiming that Dr Hasan has not condemned the actions of Quilliam co-founder Maajid Nawaz, a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn. Mr Nawaz has received death threats and much abuse for saying that he did not find a Jesus & Mo cartoon offensive. He has written about the experience in The Guardian. The Islamic Society had been pressing the University's Vice Chancellor, Wendy Purcell, to cancel the talk claiming that the Quilliam Foundation was promoting "Islamophobia". In a template letter it encouraged others to send to Ms Purcell, the Society says: "The decision to invite a member of the Quilliam Foundation by our chaplain David Evans has been extremely misjudged and we fear that if this invite is not withdrawn, a long term feeling of mistrust and suspicion will arise between the Muslim student community and the chaplaincy – the very chaplaincy set up to create a safe environment for the faithful and inter-faith cohesion. "I would request that you consider the withdrawal of the invitation of Usama Hasan of the Quilliam Foundation and cancel the event. This would be a clear statement that the university listens to the concerns of its students and cares about the peaceful and cohesive environment we enjoy on campus". Islamic Society spokesman Yusef Chambers, a senior figure in the extremist group Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), claimed that he had the support of the wider community: "It's not just Muslims – it's the community out there saying no". However, few people from the "community" turned out to support the protest. A spokesman for Plymouth University said it hosted "hundreds" of events each year, attracting "high profile guest speakers" and these events played a key role in "stimulating debate and encouraging individuals to think for themselves, broaden their horizons and make sense of the world in an informed manner". The spokesman added: "This does mean that some topics may not be of interest to everyone, suit their tastes, or be in keeping with their ideologies, which is something we understand and respect. We rigorously consider the appropriateness of any event or guest speaker in balancing our obligation to uphold the principles of free speech with our duty of care to students, staff and the community". Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "I am pleased to say that this particular attempt to stifle free speech. By all means let the Islamic Society students peacefully protest and make their feelings known, but any attempt to silence debate must be fiercely resisted. Quilliam is trying hard to promote a more moderate face for Islam – and incidents like this show how essential its work is".
	Northern Ireland council lifts ban on “blasphemous” Bible play News \| Tue, 28th Jan 2014 Newtownabbey Borough Council in Northern Ireland has overturned its ban on a play that spoofs the Bible. The Council's Arts Committee had originally cancelled two performances of The Bible: The Complete Word Of God (Abridged) at the council-owned Mill Theatre. But after an international outcry that brought condemnation from the likes of Amnesty International, Tim Minchin and Richard Dawkins, the Arts Committee has now reversed its ban. The decision was upheld by the full council at an acrimonious meeting on Monday. DUP members of the council had branded the play "blasphemous" and an attack on Christianity, but the decision caused outrage to supporters of free expression and made international headlines. When a supporter of the National Secular Society wrote in protest to one of the councillors behind the ban, DUP member Billy Ball, he received this message in response: "Thank you for your email but when did I say I wanted to censor the arts? I stated my opposition to this play on its mockery of God's word. Last week in [the] European Parliament they highlighted 50 countries that persecute Christians if caught in possession of scriptures. [Christians] are either imprisoned or put to death. The word of god is not a book. It is THE book, our guide to everyday living [and] a comfort in times of trouble. I know you will not agree with me that's up to you. I as a Christian bear no malice for anyone. Yours in Christ, Billy Ball." However, another DUP councillor, Alderman Dineen Walker, refused to support the ban and told the Belfast Telegraph it was not the job of councillors to censor art. The Reduced Shakespeare Company, the company which is to perform the play, said they were "thrilled Newtownabbey audiences can now see what all the fuss was about." They said the publicity had resulted in several other dates on their tour selling out and their twitter following had increased to over 10,000.
	Tickets on sale now for Secularist of the Year 2014 News \| Thu, 30th Jan 2014 The shortlist has been announced for this year's Irwin Prize for Secularist of the Year. The award is presented annually in recognition of an individual or an organisation considered to have made an outstanding contribution to the secular cause. Nominations for Secularist of the Year are made by members and supporters of the National Secular Society; the shortlist and eventual winner is chosen by the NSS Council – along with Dr Michael Irwin, the sponsor of the award. This year's prize will be presented by Shadow Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Kerry McCarthy MP, at a lunchtime event in central London on Saturday 29 March. This year's shortlist for the award is as follows: Nick Cohen – for his eloquent and passionate defence of free speech and for consistently standing up for secularist principles in the media. An example of which can be found here. Jem Henderson – for standing up for the rights of all Girlguides, to take the new secular oath after guide leaders refused to drop God from the promise. One person who nominated Jem described her as "an inspiration" and praised her "tremendous courage and integrity" when opposed in the media by powerful public figures and organisations. Safak Pavey, member of the Turkish Parliament – for consistently standing up in defence of secularism in Turkey as the Islamist-leaning Government tries to dismantle it. In 2012, she was awarded the International Women of Courage Award by the US Department of State. You can read a piece by Safak on secularism here. Abhishek Phadnis and Chris Moos (jointly) – for bravely challenging Islamist groups, their own university (LSE) and Universities UK over important and fundamental issues such as free speech and gender segregation. Gita Sahgal – for her advocacy of secularism and tireless activism against fundamentalism, blasphemy laws, restrictions on free speech and violence against women. Gita was co-founder of Southall Black Sisters and Women Against Fundamentalism and more recently founded Centre for Secular Space. Dan Snow – for promoting a secular vision for the national ceremony of remembrance and challenging the Church of England's dominant role at the Cenotaph. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, commented: "This year we have a remarkable list of nominees, all of them deserving of the £5,000 Irwin Prize. This year's occasion looks set to be a real celebration of freedom, fairness and human rights – all of which are impossible without secularism". Last year's prize was awarded to Plan UK's Girls fund in honour of Pakistani school girl and campaigner for girl's education, Malala Yousafzai. Other previous prize winners have included former MP Evan Harris, Lord Avebury, Maryam Namazie, Southall Black Sisters, Sophie in 't Veld MEP and Peter Tatchell. Tickets for this year's lunchtime event are available online, priced at £45. This includes a welcome 'Jesus & Mojito' cocktail and a three-course meal with tea and coffee. Tickets can also be purchased from the NSS office by making a cheque payable to 'National Secular Society' and sending it to NSS, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL – and please remember to indicate whether you have any special dietary requirements.
	Tony Blair’s ‘solution’ to religious conflict will simply make things worse Opinion \| Thu, 30th Jan 2014 *In reaction to Tony Blair's recent reflections on religious conflict, Terry Sanderson reflects upon the dangers of Blair's promotion of* *the "us" and "them" mentality.* Writing in last Sunday's Observer, Tony Blair repeated his mantra that the 21^st century's wars will be fired not by "ideology" but by religious extremism. It's not a new prediction, he's made it often before. And most of us would agree it is highly likely to come true. In fact, it is already true for large parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia. But Mr Blair's proposed solution is completely wrong. It is the opposite of what needs to be done. Not only is it not the solution, but it is likely to make the situation a thousand times worse. So what does Mr Blair recommend as the way to stop the world being consumed by religious fanaticism and violence? Why, more religion of course. He thinks that people can be educated to understand each other. Study religion and understand it properly and everyone will be able to live in tolerance and peace, he says. It is only people who don't truly understand their faith who "pervert" it and use it for malignant purposes. Unfortunately for Mr Blair's argument, the people who are presently engaged in religious warfare are the ones most educated about religion. They are the ones who have studied it and come to the conclusion that their version is superior to all others and must be imposed on the ignorant unbelievers. I think the ayatollahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia would be most offended by Mr Blair's contention that religious extremism springs from ignorance of religion. I think the imams who are currently brainwashing children in madrassas in Pakistan would think they know far more about Islam than Mr Blair does. And those who shout Allahu Akbar every time they fire off a mortar to kill more of their fellow Muslims or don a vest bomb go to mosque every day, pray five times a day and read the Koran intensively. People who claim that they know what is the "real" or "true" version of a religion are likely to be either extremely arrogant or themselves fanatics. Yet let us look at the place where religion holds least sway – in Europe. Over the past few decades, since the defeat of Nazism, Europe has made a real effort to avoid warfare between its nations. It has created the European Union and an economic pact that has unified states for mutual (most of the time, anyway) benefit. It is far from perfect, but since its inception, the prospect of war between those European nations that are part of it has never in history seemed more unlikely. And what other factor may be involved in this extended period of European peace? Well, the fact that religion has lost its grip on the European mind. We have become more democratic, free of dictatorships and secularised. The Vatican – proponent of so many wars in Europe – is a shadow of its historical self. A religious war between EU nations? Unthinkable. Even the troubles of Northern Ireland have, in the main, been tempered. It is only a small faction of fanatics (who, incidentally, take their religion very seriously) who feel the "problems" have not been resolved and would like to resume the bombings and assassinations. Mr Blair, of course, thinks religion should become important again in Europe. He thinks we should all be forcibly educated about "our" religion as well as about "their" religion. This should preferably be done in "single-faith" schools, the present proliferation of which in this country is of his making. But how can separating young people from each other on the basis of religion be a means of uniting them? How can the constant reinforcement of religious difference be healthy when you are trying to defuse religious tensions? How can ignorance and extremism be discouraged when you have unregulated madrassas pumping extreme religion into the heads of the next generation of Muslims in this country? Something like 2000 of these undesirable institutions are operating in Britain and it is only when some brave parent complains publicly about their child being beaten that we get a glimpse of what is happening within. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published a report on madrassas in the UK in 2011 It proceeds from the assumption that madrassas have had an unjustifiably bad press and are, actually, a good idea and should be encouraged and even supported by the state. Once that false premise is established, the rest of the report goes on to make the case for madrassas. In doing so, the IPPR peddles one of the most insidious ideas about religious schools. It says: "a recent study has highlighted the potential for faith-based schools to promote community cohesion by engaging with the wider community. This is already happening within some communities where madrassas are working to increase integration within communities by building stronger networks with other faith and non-faith organisations." The promoters of this approach seem blind to its utter foolishness. "Engaging with the wider community"? Why should schools have to make efforts to engage with the wider community? They should be at the heart of the community. There should never be a point when any school should not be a part of the wider community. The fact that they need to engage with the wider community is an admission that they are divisive and separatist. The more we allow our schools to be religionised, the more we pander to the demands of "religious leaders" who are desperate to use our publicly funded education system to sustain themselves, the more divided as a society we will become. So, no Tony Blair – we don't want more religion. We need less. Much less. We need to stop using our schools to punch home the "us" and "them" mentality that is so dangerous in these times of religious mistrust. We need to bring people from different cultures and religions together under one roof when they are children and still relatively free of the suspicions and prejudices of their parents. If we want cohesion we have to give young people the opportunity to cohere. How can that happen when they never meet, except through artificially arranged encounters that, in themselves, simply emphasise difference? Never has the "faith school" myth been so urgently in need of challenge. It is clear that the Church of England intends to turn its own (that is to say the taxpayers) schools into the equivalent of madrassas, increasing the emphasis on evangelism and proselytising methods. So, as the Christians use schools to reinforce the message that they have the ultimate truth, the Muslims do the same in "their" schools. The Hindus do the same, the Sikhs do the same. They will deny it, of course, but that is the fact. What other purpose can there be for a single-faith school? It is madness but while people like Tony Blair (and Michael Gove) have influence, we will be forever beholden to the "faith leaders" for an education system that is storing up big problems for the future.
	Fundamentalist Christians claim victory over “gay cure” bus advert News \| Mon, 27th Jan 2014 The Christian Legal Centre and an organisation called Core Issues Trust, which claims to offer curative "therapy" for homosexuals, are claiming that a Court of Appeal decision today over the banning of an advertisement on London buses is "an important victory" – even though the ban remains in place for the time being. The poster, which was to appear on the side of buses, read: "Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!" It was supposed to be a response to the ads posted by Stonewall which read "Some people are gay – get over it". The Christian fundamentalists argued in court that the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, had illegally used his position as chairman of Transport for London (TfL) to ban the Christian advert in order to garner gay votes for his 2012 election campaign. The High Court rejected these claims, but today the Court of Appeal said there should be further investigation to reconsider whether the Mayor had acted "for an improper purpose" in calling for the ban. Mayor Johnson had argued that the Core Issues advert was ''offensive to gays'' and could lead to retaliation against the wider Christian community. His office welcomed the ruling, saying: "The Mayor is pleased TfL's original decision to ban the Core Issues Trust advert has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. He agreed with TfL's ban at the time and will continue to support the banning of adverts that breach advertising policy and cause widespread public offence, as this advert clearly did". Andrea Minichiello Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, said: "In a mature democracy both sides of a debate should be heard but it seems that Boris Johnson, Transport for London and Stonewall are intent to shut down the Christian side of the debate by fair means or foul". The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, sitting with Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Christopher Clarke, declared: "It is not possible to reach a conclusion on the question whether TfL's decision not to allow the Trust's advertisement was unlawful on the grounds that it was instructed by the mayor or made for an improper purpose. "I would, therefore, remit the case for the judge (Mrs Justice Lang) to reconsider this question in the light of fresh evidence and in the light of any further material that emerges as a result of the directions that she may give". Lord Dyson said that if after reconsideration "the judge decides that the decision was not instructed by the mayor and not made for an improper purpose, then her decision [upholding the ban] will stand". However, if the judge decides that the decision was instructed by the mayor or made for an improper purpose, "then the decision must be quashed." Dr Mike Davidson, who leads The Core Issues Trust, said he would write to the mayor to ask for all emails linked to the ban, "current and potentially deleted", to be made available to his lawyers.

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

Quotes of the Week

"Some arguments matter more than party politics. The right of democratic representatives and democratic publics to speak their minds without fear of retribution is one of them."
(Nick Cohen, Observer)

"Religions appear like zones of conflict waiting to explode on contact."
(Rick Salutin, Toronto Star)

Essays of the Week

On the importance of the right to offend
(Kenan Malik, pandemonium)

No need to 'respect' religions
(Anthony Furey, Toronto Sun)

Upcoming Events

Conway Hall Sunday Lecture: Secularism and Human Rights - Mazin Zeki

Sun, 9th Feb 2014

Talk: When will the UK legalise doctor-assisted suicide? Bristol Secular Society

Mon, 10th Feb 2014

Council of ex-Muslims of Britain fundraiser - Marlene Dietrich – an affectionate tribute

Thu, 27th Feb 2014

Secularist of the Year Awards 2014

Sat, 29th Mar 2014

International conference on the Religious-Right, Secularism and Civil Rights

Sat, 11th Oct 2014

	Censorship on Channel 4 News: an open letter to the editor News \| Wed, 29th Jan 2014 The National Secular Society has written to the editor of Channel 4 News to express its concern over a decision to censor a cartoon depiction of the Prophet Mohammad during its broadcast on Tuesday 28 January. The letter reads as follows: Dear Mr de Pear, Editor, Channel 4 News We are writing in response to a package presented by news correspondent Katie Razzall, on Tuesday 28 January 2014, which looked at the controversy surrounding Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate, Maajid Nawaz, and his recent tweeting of a Jesus & Mo cartoon. We were surprised and extremely disappointed to see that Channel 4 News took the decision to cover up the image of Mohammed when showing the Jesus & Mo cartoon, and we are thus keen to elicit the rationale behind that particular editorial decision. During the report, it was noted that this decision was taken so as not to cause offence to some viewers; however we would like to point out that by your making this decision you have effectively taken a side in a debate where a Muslim man has suffered violent death threats after he explicitly said he did not find the cartoons offensive. You have taken the side of the reactionaries - the side of people who bully and violently threaten Muslims, such as Mr Nawaz, online. By redacting the picture of 'Mo', you have contributed to a climate of censorship brought on by the unreasonable and reactionary views of some religious extremists. Rather than defending free expression, one of the most precious pillars of our liberal democratic society, you have chosen instead to listen to extremists and patronise British Muslims by assuming they will take offence at an irreverent and satirical cartoon. By taking the decision you did, not only did you betray the fundamental journalistic principle of free speech, but you have become complicit in a trend that seeks to insidiously stereotype all Muslim people as reacting in one uniform way (generally presented as overly sensitive and potentially violent). Given that your editorial decision seems to be have been weighted by a concern with offence, we might also note that you ended up with a report that was, in fact, very offensive to many; offensive to those who take seriously and cherish our basic freedom to speak and question, and offensive to many Muslims, whose voices you do not hear because you insist on placating the reactionary voices of people claiming to represent what it is to be an 'authentic Muslim'. In the subsequent interview with Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, presenter Jon Snow made the point that there are a number of places in the world where blasphemy is punished by death. This reality provides an apposite backdrop to the whole debate and, by extension, Channel 4's decision to censor. In a world where the notion of offence to those with religious views is being used to control and punish people of all religions and none, the UK has an urgent responsibility to uphold freedom of expression in the face of religious extremism. Its news outlets share in this responsibility. Whilst we understand that you covered both sides of the issue through your report and subsequent interview, we were keen to highlight the dangerous precedent you have set by taking the editorial decision to censor the Jesus & Mo cartoon, and the deeply symbolic implications that decision has. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter. We are considering this an open letter. Yours sincerely, National Secular Society
	Channel 4 defends censorship of Jesus and Mo cartoon News \| Thu, 30th Jan 2014 Channel 4 has responded to criticism of its censorship of the Jesus & Mo cartoon by saying it did not want to cause offence to its audience. Rather than respond directly to an open letter from the National Secular Society, Channel 4 replied with a standard letter sent to all those who complained about its redaction of the cartoon depiction of the Prophet Mohammad. The letter, from Steve Reynolds of Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries, reads: As we are sure you can appreciate, this is a very sensitive subject for many viewers. Channel 4 News editorial staff gave great consideration to the issues involved and believe that they reached a fair and balanced judgement, weighing up the potential for offence to some viewers by showing the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed and the necessity of showing the cartoon in full. The senior editorial team decided that the showing of the entire illustration, whilst likely to cause offence, was not integral to the story, and therefore took the decision to pixelate. Whilst we acknowledge your views, we believe that on balance this was the correct decision and as a rule, where we consider the likelihood of significant offence to our audience, we will attempt to mitigate against that. As to not pixelating the image of Jesus, it was not felt that the same level of offence was likely to be provoked as the image is commonly depicted in cartoon form. We appreciate you taking the time to contact us and be assured your comments have been logged for the information of our News team. Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, commented: "The claim that showing the entire illustration was 'not integral to the story' is ludicrous. It was the story. The truth is that Channel 4, like so many others, is intimidated and afraid of the reaction from violent extremists. Such extremists have got this country in a fearful stranglehold that is gradually destroying our commitment to freedom of speech. We may have abolished the blasphemy law, but who needs it when the same effect can be achieved by terrorising people?" Mr Sanderson said that Channel 4 should be ashamed of itself for capitulating in this way to supposed 'sensitivities' that it does not respect in any other context. "Channel 4 does not hesitate to create controversy and offence in its other output, indeed it prides itself on doing so." Meanwhile, the Muslim Association of Britain is now attempting to work this controversy up into a similar level as the Danish cartoon controversy by issuing a condemnation of the cartoon. Download a copy of the National Secular Society's letter to Channel 4 (PDF)
	University Islamic Society tries to stop talk because speaker didn’t condemn Maajid Nawaz News \| Wed, 29th Jan 2014 Students from the University of Plymouth's Islamic Society failed in their efforts to get a speaker from the anti-extremist think tank Quilliam banned this week. They wanted his talk cancelled because he failed to condemn Maajid Nawaz's tweeting of the Jesus and Mo cartoon. The talk by Sheikh Dr Usama Hasan, a senior researcher in Islamic Studies at Quilliam was on the topic of Islam and democracy in the wake of the Arab Spring. But the Islamic Society organised a protest, attended by about 30 people, claiming that Dr Hasan has not condemned the actions of Quilliam co-founder Maajid Nawaz, a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn. Mr Nawaz has received death threats and much abuse for saying that he did not find a Jesus & Mo cartoon offensive. He has written about the experience in The Guardian. The Islamic Society had been pressing the University's Vice Chancellor, Wendy Purcell, to cancel the talk claiming that the Quilliam Foundation was promoting "Islamophobia". In a template letter it encouraged others to send to Ms Purcell, the Society says: "The decision to invite a member of the Quilliam Foundation by our chaplain David Evans has been extremely misjudged and we fear that if this invite is not withdrawn, a long term feeling of mistrust and suspicion will arise between the Muslim student community and the chaplaincy – the very chaplaincy set up to create a safe environment for the faithful and inter-faith cohesion. "I would request that you consider the withdrawal of the invitation of Usama Hasan of the Quilliam Foundation and cancel the event. This would be a clear statement that the university listens to the concerns of its students and cares about the peaceful and cohesive environment we enjoy on campus". Islamic Society spokesman Yusef Chambers, a senior figure in the extremist group Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), claimed that he had the support of the wider community: "It's not just Muslims – it's the community out there saying no". However, few people from the "community" turned out to support the protest. A spokesman for Plymouth University said it hosted "hundreds" of events each year, attracting "high profile guest speakers" and these events played a key role in "stimulating debate and encouraging individuals to think for themselves, broaden their horizons and make sense of the world in an informed manner". The spokesman added: "This does mean that some topics may not be of interest to everyone, suit their tastes, or be in keeping with their ideologies, which is something we understand and respect. We rigorously consider the appropriateness of any event or guest speaker in balancing our obligation to uphold the principles of free speech with our duty of care to students, staff and the community". Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "I am pleased to say that this particular attempt to stifle free speech. By all means let the Islamic Society students peacefully protest and make their feelings known, but any attempt to silence debate must be fiercely resisted. Quilliam is trying hard to promote a more moderate face for Islam – and incidents like this show how essential its work is".
	Northern Ireland council lifts ban on “blasphemous” Bible play News \| Tue, 28th Jan 2014 Newtownabbey Borough Council in Northern Ireland has overturned its ban on a play that spoofs the Bible. The Council's Arts Committee had originally cancelled two performances of The Bible: The Complete Word Of God (Abridged) at the council-owned Mill Theatre. But after an international outcry that brought condemnation from the likes of Amnesty International, Tim Minchin and Richard Dawkins, the Arts Committee has now reversed its ban. The decision was upheld by the full council at an acrimonious meeting on Monday. DUP members of the council had branded the play "blasphemous" and an attack on Christianity, but the decision caused outrage to supporters of free expression and made international headlines. When a supporter of the National Secular Society wrote in protest to one of the councillors behind the ban, DUP member Billy Ball, he received this message in response: "Thank you for your email but when did I say I wanted to censor the arts? I stated my opposition to this play on its mockery of God's word. Last week in [the] European Parliament they highlighted 50 countries that persecute Christians if caught in possession of scriptures. [Christians] are either imprisoned or put to death. The word of god is not a book. It is THE book, our guide to everyday living [and] a comfort in times of trouble. I know you will not agree with me that's up to you. I as a Christian bear no malice for anyone. Yours in Christ, Billy Ball." However, another DUP councillor, Alderman Dineen Walker, refused to support the ban and told the Belfast Telegraph it was not the job of councillors to censor art. The Reduced Shakespeare Company, the company which is to perform the play, said they were "thrilled Newtownabbey audiences can now see what all the fuss was about." They said the publicity had resulted in several other dates on their tour selling out and their twitter following had increased to over 10,000.
	Tickets on sale now for Secularist of the Year 2014 News \| Thu, 30th Jan 2014 The shortlist has been announced for this year's Irwin Prize for Secularist of the Year. The award is presented annually in recognition of an individual or an organisation considered to have made an outstanding contribution to the secular cause. Nominations for Secularist of the Year are made by members and supporters of the National Secular Society; the shortlist and eventual winner is chosen by the NSS Council – along with Dr Michael Irwin, the sponsor of the award. This year's prize will be presented by Shadow Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Kerry McCarthy MP, at a lunchtime event in central London on Saturday 29 March. This year's shortlist for the award is as follows: Nick Cohen – for his eloquent and passionate defence of free speech and for consistently standing up for secularist principles in the media. An example of which can be found here. Jem Henderson – for standing up for the rights of all Girlguides, to take the new secular oath after guide leaders refused to drop God from the promise. One person who nominated Jem described her as "an inspiration" and praised her "tremendous courage and integrity" when opposed in the media by powerful public figures and organisations. Safak Pavey, member of the Turkish Parliament – for consistently standing up in defence of secularism in Turkey as the Islamist-leaning Government tries to dismantle it. In 2012, she was awarded the International Women of Courage Award by the US Department of State. You can read a piece by Safak on secularism here. Abhishek Phadnis and Chris Moos (jointly) – for bravely challenging Islamist groups, their own university (LSE) and Universities UK over important and fundamental issues such as free speech and gender segregation. Gita Sahgal – for her advocacy of secularism and tireless activism against fundamentalism, blasphemy laws, restrictions on free speech and violence against women. Gita was co-founder of Southall Black Sisters and Women Against Fundamentalism and more recently founded Centre for Secular Space. Dan Snow – for promoting a secular vision for the national ceremony of remembrance and challenging the Church of England's dominant role at the Cenotaph. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, commented: "This year we have a remarkable list of nominees, all of them deserving of the £5,000 Irwin Prize. This year's occasion looks set to be a real celebration of freedom, fairness and human rights – all of which are impossible without secularism". Last year's prize was awarded to Plan UK's Girls fund in honour of Pakistani school girl and campaigner for girl's education, Malala Yousafzai. Other previous prize winners have included former MP Evan Harris, Lord Avebury, Maryam Namazie, Southall Black Sisters, Sophie in 't Veld MEP and Peter Tatchell. Tickets for this year's lunchtime event are available online, priced at £45. This includes a welcome 'Jesus & Mojito' cocktail and a three-course meal with tea and coffee. Tickets can also be purchased from the NSS office by making a cheque payable to 'National Secular Society' and sending it to NSS, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL – and please remember to indicate whether you have any special dietary requirements.
	Tony Blair’s ‘solution’ to religious conflict will simply make things worse Opinion \| Thu, 30th Jan 2014 *In reaction to Tony Blair's recent reflections on religious conflict, Terry Sanderson reflects upon the dangers of Blair's promotion of* *the "us" and "them" mentality.* Writing in last Sunday's Observer, Tony Blair repeated his mantra that the 21^st century's wars will be fired not by "ideology" but by religious extremism. It's not a new prediction, he's made it often before. And most of us would agree it is highly likely to come true. In fact, it is already true for large parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia. But Mr Blair's proposed solution is completely wrong. It is the opposite of what needs to be done. Not only is it not the solution, but it is likely to make the situation a thousand times worse. So what does Mr Blair recommend as the way to stop the world being consumed by religious fanaticism and violence? Why, more religion of course. He thinks that people can be educated to understand each other. Study religion and understand it properly and everyone will be able to live in tolerance and peace, he says. It is only people who don't truly understand their faith who "pervert" it and use it for malignant purposes. Unfortunately for Mr Blair's argument, the people who are presently engaged in religious warfare are the ones most educated about religion. They are the ones who have studied it and come to the conclusion that their version is superior to all others and must be imposed on the ignorant unbelievers. I think the ayatollahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia would be most offended by Mr Blair's contention that religious extremism springs from ignorance of religion. I think the imams who are currently brainwashing children in madrassas in Pakistan would think they know far more about Islam than Mr Blair does. And those who shout Allahu Akbar every time they fire off a mortar to kill more of their fellow Muslims or don a vest bomb go to mosque every day, pray five times a day and read the Koran intensively. People who claim that they know what is the "real" or "true" version of a religion are likely to be either extremely arrogant or themselves fanatics. Yet let us look at the place where religion holds least sway – in Europe. Over the past few decades, since the defeat of Nazism, Europe has made a real effort to avoid warfare between its nations. It has created the European Union and an economic pact that has unified states for mutual (most of the time, anyway) benefit. It is far from perfect, but since its inception, the prospect of war between those European nations that are part of it has never in history seemed more unlikely. And what other factor may be involved in this extended period of European peace? Well, the fact that religion has lost its grip on the European mind. We have become more democratic, free of dictatorships and secularised. The Vatican – proponent of so many wars in Europe – is a shadow of its historical self. A religious war between EU nations? Unthinkable. Even the troubles of Northern Ireland have, in the main, been tempered. It is only a small faction of fanatics (who, incidentally, take their religion very seriously) who feel the "problems" have not been resolved and would like to resume the bombings and assassinations. Mr Blair, of course, thinks religion should become important again in Europe. He thinks we should all be forcibly educated about "our" religion as well as about "their" religion. This should preferably be done in "single-faith" schools, the present proliferation of which in this country is of his making. But how can separating young people from each other on the basis of religion be a means of uniting them? How can the constant reinforcement of religious difference be healthy when you are trying to defuse religious tensions? How can ignorance and extremism be discouraged when you have unregulated madrassas pumping extreme religion into the heads of the next generation of Muslims in this country? Something like 2000 of these undesirable institutions are operating in Britain and it is only when some brave parent complains publicly about their child being beaten that we get a glimpse of what is happening within. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published a report on madrassas in the UK in 2011 It proceeds from the assumption that madrassas have had an unjustifiably bad press and are, actually, a good idea and should be encouraged and even supported by the state. Once that false premise is established, the rest of the report goes on to make the case for madrassas. In doing so, the IPPR peddles one of the most insidious ideas about religious schools. It says: "a recent study has highlighted the potential for faith-based schools to promote community cohesion by engaging with the wider community. This is already happening within some communities where madrassas are working to increase integration within communities by building stronger networks with other faith and non-faith organisations." The promoters of this approach seem blind to its utter foolishness. "Engaging with the wider community"? Why should schools have to make efforts to engage with the wider community? They should be at the heart of the community. There should never be a point when any school should not be a part of the wider community. The fact that they need to engage with the wider community is an admission that they are divisive and separatist. The more we allow our schools to be religionised, the more we pander to the demands of "religious leaders" who are desperate to use our publicly funded education system to sustain themselves, the more divided as a society we will become. So, no Tony Blair – we don't want more religion. We need less. Much less. We need to stop using our schools to punch home the "us" and "them" mentality that is so dangerous in these times of religious mistrust. We need to bring people from different cultures and religions together under one roof when they are children and still relatively free of the suspicions and prejudices of their parents. If we want cohesion we have to give young people the opportunity to cohere. How can that happen when they never meet, except through artificially arranged encounters that, in themselves, simply emphasise difference? Never has the "faith school" myth been so urgently in need of challenge. It is clear that the Church of England intends to turn its own (that is to say the taxpayers) schools into the equivalent of madrassas, increasing the emphasis on evangelism and proselytising methods. So, as the Christians use schools to reinforce the message that they have the ultimate truth, the Muslims do the same in "their" schools. The Hindus do the same, the Sikhs do the same. They will deny it, of course, but that is the fact. What other purpose can there be for a single-faith school? It is madness but while people like Tony Blair (and Michael Gove) have influence, we will be forever beholden to the "faith leaders" for an education system that is storing up big problems for the future.
	Fundamentalist Christians claim victory over “gay cure” bus advert News \| Mon, 27th Jan 2014 The Christian Legal Centre and an organisation called Core Issues Trust, which claims to offer curative "therapy" for homosexuals, are claiming that a Court of Appeal decision today over the banning of an advertisement on London buses is "an important victory" – even though the ban remains in place for the time being. The poster, which was to appear on the side of buses, read: "Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!" It was supposed to be a response to the ads posted by Stonewall which read "Some people are gay – get over it". The Christian fundamentalists argued in court that the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, had illegally used his position as chairman of Transport for London (TfL) to ban the Christian advert in order to garner gay votes for his 2012 election campaign. The High Court rejected these claims, but today the Court of Appeal said there should be further investigation to reconsider whether the Mayor had acted "for an improper purpose" in calling for the ban. Mayor Johnson had argued that the Core Issues advert was ''offensive to gays'' and could lead to retaliation against the wider Christian community. His office welcomed the ruling, saying: "The Mayor is pleased TfL's original decision to ban the Core Issues Trust advert has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. He agreed with TfL's ban at the time and will continue to support the banning of adverts that breach advertising policy and cause widespread public offence, as this advert clearly did". Andrea Minichiello Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, said: "In a mature democracy both sides of a debate should be heard but it seems that Boris Johnson, Transport for London and Stonewall are intent to shut down the Christian side of the debate by fair means or foul". The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, sitting with Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Christopher Clarke, declared: "It is not possible to reach a conclusion on the question whether TfL's decision not to allow the Trust's advertisement was unlawful on the grounds that it was instructed by the mayor or made for an improper purpose. "I would, therefore, remit the case for the judge (Mrs Justice Lang) to reconsider this question in the light of fresh evidence and in the light of any further material that emerges as a result of the directions that she may give". Lord Dyson said that if after reconsideration "the judge decides that the decision was not instructed by the mayor and not made for an improper purpose, then her decision [upholding the ban] will stand". However, if the judge decides that the decision was instructed by the mayor or made for an improper purpose, "then the decision must be quashed." Dr Mike Davidson, who leads The Core Issues Trust, said he would write to the mayor to ask for all emails linked to the ban, "current and potentially deleted", to be made available to his lawyers.

Newsline 31 January 2014

News, Blogs & Opinion

Quotes of the Week

Essays of the Week

Upcoming Events

Sign up for our newsletter