Newsline 6 February 2015

Newsline 6 February 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

Peers and secularists criticise Government over failure to act on caste-based discrimination

News | Tue, 3rd Feb 2015

A debate in the House of Lords has seen cross-party condemnation of the Government over its failure to implement legislation intended to protect citizens from caste-based discrimination.

National Secular Society honorary associate Lord Avebury tabled a question in the House of Lords to ask what the timetable was for "implementing the legislation to incorporate caste as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010."

In response, Baroness Garden replied that the Government has "no immediate plans to incorporate caste into legislation."

The Baroness said that a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal judgement opened the possibility of caste-based discrimination claims being made under the "ethnic origins element of Section 9 of the Equality Act 2010." However, Lord Avebury questioned whether this was actually the case, and raised the opinion of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that the judgement Baroness Garden referred to "is not binding on all future cases of caste discrimination" and that further legislation was still needed.

Baroness Garden declined to commit a future Government to outlawing caste discrimination, and stated only that an "incoming Administration will need to consider how to discharge their legal obligations in respect of the outstanding duty to legislate" on the matter.

Baroness Thornton said that "the issues cannot be ignored or side-lined" given that caste-based discrimination cases were "coming before the courts", and called for "clarity" in the law.

Lord Deben noted that Peers had "specifically refused to support the Government's position and refused to accept the delay" in new legislation.

Baroness Garden stated the Government was "conscious of the delay in this matter" and that she "recognised the frustration" over the lack of new legislation.

NSS honorary associate Lord Cashman (pictured, top right) was highly critical of the fact that no action had been taken, and said "all discrimination is difficult to deal with, but such procrastination is entirely unacceptable." Lord Cashman urged the Minister to "please report back the strength of feeling in this House that the procrastination is entirely unacceptable."

A report commissioned by the previous Government on caste discrimination in the UK found that the personal consequences of caste discrimination and caste-based harassment include "reduced career prospects, lower earnings; detrimental effects on education; social isolation; reduced access to social provision; depression, loss of self-esteem, loss of confidence" and "public violence."

Research suggests that as many as 200,000 people living in the UK may be suffering from caste-based discrimination, though figures vary. Campaigners have previously said that "thousands suffer abuse and prejudice because they are considered low caste."

Following intense lobbying by anti-caste campaigners including the NSS, the Equality Act 2010 gave ministers the power to include caste, under race, as a protected characteristic. However, this requires secondary legislation to make "caste discrimination a form of race discrimination." Under current law, discrimination on the basis of caste is only illegal if "the circumstances of the case fall within the existing prohibition of race discrimination." This has led to fears that many people could fall victim to caste-based discrimination which is not explicitly prohibited by the Equality Act 2010.

The government has faced strong criticism for stalling on plans to make caste-based discrimination illegal. In December 2014 The Sunday Times reported that "senior Whitehall sources" claimed David Cameron had personally blocked proposals to outlaw caste discrimination, even though the measures had previously been agreed to by ministers. According to the source, "it was all signed off and ready to go but Cameron said this is not happening before the election. We are pretty shocked that he is overruling the will of parliament."

Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: "The Government has been directed to introduce anti-discrimination legislation on caste by Parliament and the UN. For it to defy both suggests conflict with a strong vested interest."

He added: "This would be consistent with a letter we have been shown from a Government Minister written in February 2012, which argues that it should not only be the 'victim communities' 'most susceptible to being victims of any caste discrimination or harassment' that should be consulted, but the 'the wider Hindu and Sikh communities' too. Is that not like saying that sexists or misogynists should be allowed to veto sex equality legislation?

"Our legal advice suggests that the Government is required by treaty obligation to implement the UN recommendation. I hope the Government will rethink its unworthy stance, which compounds the abuse suffered by those considered of 'low caste', and move quickly to introduce the legislation demanded of it."

Mr Porteous Wood added: "Existing law only protects some victims of caste-based discrimination, and cases brought under it would be complicated and problematical and therefore expensive to prove. We are already aware of one victim being financially ruined by bringing a caste discrimination case which failed on technicalities. Instead of shamelessly procrastinating at every turn, the Government should now act quickly to introduce the clear legislation needed to protect victims from discrimination."

The National Secular Society has campaigned with a diverse range of groups, including the Dalit Solidarity Network and the Christian Institute, to make caste-based discrimination illegal.

The debate can be watched here or read here

The dishonesty of religious lobbying shines like a beacon

Opinion | Tue, 3rd Feb 2015

NSS President Terry Sanderson argues that the churches have changed their lobbying tactics, and are trying to impose their doctrines through misdirection and 'slippery slope' arguments.

The reaction of the Church of England and the Catholic Church to the debate on mitochondrial disease and the research into genetics that might prevent it, reveal an interesting change in their approach to political lobbying.

At one time, not so long ago, the churches would have been quite upfront and would have said that it was not the place of scientists to "play God" and take away from the almighty his right to inflict horrendous diseases on babies.

Nowadays their objections leave God out of it and concentrate instead on dire warnings about unproved science and the dangers that might yet arise from these procedures.

They are savvy enough to know that if their lobbying concentrated on their true objections ("God doesn't like it / the Bible disapproves"), they would be laughed out of court. Parliament in our secular nation does not, in the main, make its decisions these days on the basis of what the Archbishop of Canterbury claims God wants or the Bible demands.

And so now the churches try to achieve their aim of imposing their doctrines on the whole country by pretending it's all about something else.

We saw it in the debates on Assisted Dying – the mainstream religious representatives no longer claim that it is against God's will to end a life before He ordains it.

No, now they claim that old people will be pressured by their avaricious children into taking the tablets so that they can get their hands on the house. And if that doesn't convince, how about the slippery slope argument – soon people who are merely depressed and not terminally ill might want the doctor to do them in.

It was the same with the gay marriage debate. No longer was it claimed by the clergy that it was an abomination in the sight of the Lord (well, not by the mainstream churches, anyway), it was all about protecting the concept of marriage as a means of raising children and maintaining "our" traditional concept of wedded bliss being reserved only for a man and a woman.

These apparently rational arguments (often backed up with spurious statistics and dire predictions of social catastrophe) no longer make reference to the doctrines of their churches. That's because most people don't believe in them. And even those who do consider themselves to be religious are repelled by many of the churches' more unreasonable and cruel demands.

Back in the 1960s, when homosexuality and abortion were being decriminalised, arguments in the Houses of Parliament were far more overtly religious. The Lord's name would be invoked and the churches would insist that their Bible-based doctrines must be retained in law.

They lost those arguments – as well as many of their parishioners. In an age of reason the churches seemed completely out of touch and, sometimes, off-the-wall.

Why on earth, people began to ask, do they oppose contraception (which was legalised only in the face of strong religious objections in parliament). And why did they oppose the legalisation of cremation for dead bodies when the graveyards were full? (The body must be intact, said the bishops, so that it can rise again on the Day of Judgment).

They opposed the introduction of IVF and even artificial insemination – but were reluctant to say that it was because it defied God's will.

Having heard the sniggers every time they invoked "the word of the Lord", the episcopal lobbying tactics have changed. The religious bodies who try so hard to ensure that their privileges and influence remain unchanged have been forced to use the back door for their arguments. They know it would be counterproductive to be honest about the real reasons they oppose something that most people regard as an opportunity to relieve horrendous suffering.

MPs and peers, many of whom claim to be religious themselves, are increasingly rejecting the arguments of the bishops. And that's because once you take God out of it, the inherent dishonesty shines like a beacon.

Town Council divided over prayers in meetings

News | Sat, 31st Jan 2015

The controversial topic of prayers in council meetings has divided local councillors in Hampshire after a recent vote on the matter saw a 3-3 split on Whitchurch Town Council.

Councillor Steven Neilson drew attention to the practice after attending his first meeting, saying that prayers made him feel uncomfortable and that the saying of prayers could be unwelcoming for non- Christians. According to Cllr Nelson only "about half of councillors take part" whilst "others fiddle about quietly" waiting for the prayers to end.

Cllr Neilson said: "I'd like to see our meetings conducted in a manner equally welcoming to all councillors, regardless of their individual religious beliefs or lack of belief. I'm pleased for those who benefit from prayer but for non-Christians it can be intimidating having to sit in silence whilst people pray during a meeting."

He added that the council is "friendly and co-operative" and that causing unrest was the "last thing" he wanted to do.

The issue came to a head in a vote which saw six councillors deadlocked, with another five abstaining. With three councillors in favour of keeping the prayers on the official business of council meetings and three councillors against, chairman Mike Kean took the unusual decision of declining to cast a deciding vote. The Council's Register of Members' Interests indicates that two of the councillors in favour of including prayers in meetings have connections to local churches.

Councillor Kean, who supported the continuation of council prayers before declining to cast a deciding vote, said: "It would be wise for everyone to reflect on this issue and bring it back to full council at a later date."

Currently, prayers appear above the agenda for full council meetings, listed as "opening prayers." Neilson noted that "suggesting people leave the room to avoid attending prayers would not make a meeting welcoming to non-Christians."

According to the Andover Advertiser "all councillors agreed that they were acting within the law" in holding prayers as part of their meetings. However, a 2012 High Court ruling cast some doubt on whether Whitchurch Council has behaved lawfully.

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "The High Court ruled that it was not within a council's powers to hold worship or to summon councillors to prayer. Periods of quiet reflection are fine, but formal prayers should be entirely voluntary and held informally before Council business proper gets under way. If prayers are being held after the meeting has been called to order, the council may well in breach of the Court order.

"Hopefully this situation can be resolved amicably, either by prayers being replaced by a period of quiet reflection, or by councillors who wish to simply praying before the meeting begins."

A decision on prayers was due to be taken at the full council meeting on 2 February, but the matter was again deferred. No prayers were held at the meeting.

The NSS has raised concerns about prayers causing divisions in local communities, and is currently opposing the Local Government and Religious Observances (Etc.) Bill, which would empower a wide range of local authority bodies to conduct prayers as part of their official meetings.

Anglican vicar denounces Charlie Hebdo as “vile”, says religion should be protected from ridicule

News | Mon, 2nd Feb 2015

An Anglican vicar has described the French satirical, anti-racist magazine Charlie Hebdo as a "nihilistic little rag" and compared their cartoons to the anti-Semitic publications of Nazi Germany.

Writing in the parish magazine of Presteigne in Powys, Wales, the Reverend Stephen Hollinghurst said he doesn't think "those poor cartoonists deserved or 'asked for' what they got", before adding, "looking at the other hand, did they really have the right to attack, ridicule and offend."

He states that Charlie Hebdo attacked "virtually anyone in their nasty magazine" which he described as "a thoroughly unpleasant, nihilistic little rag despite its recent acquisition of almost sacred status."

The vicar begins his piece by questioning if freedom of speech is "really a fundamental, absolute, unconditional human right" and goes on to state: "I do find myself asking why it is, quite rightly, unacceptable, to offend, attack, ridicule or otherwise persecute people on grounds of their race, colour or sexuality, it is apparently ok to do so because of their religious beliefs or practices."

He states that this is a "double-standard almost universally accepted in the modern, sophisticated, liberated Western World" and questions "do we really have the right to say what we like about (or to) whoever we like?"

Extraordinarily, Reverend Hollinghurst goes on to compare Charlie Hebdo's satirical cartoons with the anti-Semitic propaganda of Hitler's Germany. Hollinghurst claims it is "ironic" that the West condemns the "summary murder of people because of their (in this case, Jewish) faith, whilst defending to the hilt the right of others (cartoonists in this case) to ridicule and offend people of faith and their beliefs."

The Anglican vicar asks readers, "didn't the Holocaust begin with vile anti-Semitic cartoons? Is there that much difference?"

He adds, "I'm not sure I have the answers."

The newsletter was sent to the National Secular Society by a concerned parishioner who received it in the post. He described the commentary as "jaw-dropping" and said that Hollinghurst's "vehemence in the cause of intolerance and against freedom of expression" was "giving respectable cover to violent extremists."

He added that the vicar's rant "makes me wonder if he grasps what racism or sexism or anti-Semitism actually are, or the implications … for those in this neighbourhood (and elsewhere) who live at risk of violent prejudice."

Also see: Bishop of St Asaph describes French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo as "gratuitously offensive"

Equality and Human Rights Commission publishes new freedom of expression guidelines

News | Wed, 4th Feb 2015

New guidance on freedom of expression has been published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

The new advice, coming after the attack on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, is aimed at clearing up "muddle and misunderstanding" over UK free speech laws.

NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood said: "Those seeking hardest to shut down freedom of expression in the UK should heed the Commission's welcome reminder that, in effect, no one has the right not to be offended. The law however does not explicitly make this clear.

"Given the PM's commendable emphasis in Paris on the importance of freedom of expression, we call on him to initiate a long-overdue root and branch review of our patchwork of laws in this area, which this guidance shows to be so contradictory.

"His top priority should be to introduce freedom of expression safeguards into the Public Order Act, where threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour prosecution thresholds are very low - but convictions can result in a 7 year prison term where the offence is deemed to be religiously aggravated. This is in effect a draconian 'all religion' blasphemy law that has no place in a liberal democracy."

Whilst the guidance makes clear that freedom of expression is a "fundamental right" protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the guidance does set out areas where some statements are not classified as protected speech.

The guidance explains that Article 10 "extends to the expression of views that may shock, disturb or offend the deeply-held beliefs of others", but notes that "freedom of expression does not protect statements that discriminate against or harass, or incite violence or hatred against, other persons and groups, particularly by reference to their race, religious belief, gender or sexual orientation."

EHRC Chief Executive Mark Hammond said: "The recent tragic events in Paris have again highlighted the importance of freedom of expression in our society. We have a long history of debating free speech in this country and the law recognises its value and importance.

"Today's guidance aims to address any muddle and misunderstanding about the law. What goes beyond causing offence and promotes hatred is sometimes a fine line and the source of intense debate. As an expert body and National Human Rights Institution, we hope we can play an important role in helping public bodies to understand and navigate this complex area."

The guidance states that there are "legitimate ways the state restrains what we can say but the test for curtailing freedom of expression in law is a stringent one."

It adds, "Any restrictions on freedom of expression must always be clearly set out in law, necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim, and proportionate. Subject to these conditions, freedom of expression may be limited in certain circumstances, including in order to protect others from violence, hatred and discrimination."

The EHRC add: "The boundary between the expression of intolerant or offensive views and hate speech is not always an easy one to draw. However, a number of factors are likely to be relevant, including the intention of the person making the statement, the context in which they are making it, the intended audience, and the particular words used."

The guidance notes that "freedom of expression is protected more strongly in some contexts than others."

French religious leaders asked to sign free speech declaration

News | Wed, 4th Feb 2015

Reporters Without Borders is asking French religious leaders to sign a statement declaring that "everyone is free to express criticism… of any system of political, philosophical or religious thought."

The Declaration on Freedom of Expression is part of the "Freedom of expression has no religion" campaign.

The push comes amid widespread fears about de facto Islamic blasphemy laws in Europe, and after the Pope made clear his view that freedom of expression has limits where matters of faith and religion are concerned.

The declaration states that "no one's concept of what is sacred may be imposed on others."

The campaign is asking leaders of many different faiths to sign the statement, including Muslims, Christians and Jews. Reporters Without Borders state that they have "sought the support of representatives of France's leading religious organizations" and that several senior figures have already signed the statement, including Dalil Boubakeur, head of the Paris Mosque and the French Council of Muslim Worship; François Clavairoly, who leads the Protestant Federation and Marie-Stella Boussemart, president of the French Buddhist Union.

Grand Rabbi Haïm Korsia is said to support the declaration in principle, and is calling for a "collective response from all members of the French Conference of Religious Leaders", including the "French Conference of Bishops and the French Assembly of Orthodox Bishops."

Reporters Without Borders explain that their goal is "to draw attention to the close relationship between freedom of expression and religious freedom" and "to combat the temptation to restrict freedom of expression."

Jean-Louis Bianco, president of the Secularism Monitoring Centre, said: "This important declaration stresses that freedom of conscience and freedom of expression are closely linked and complementary. Secularism is what unites them because it constitutes a framework that allows the expression of any opinion or belief, within the limits of the freedom of others."

Cambridge secularists sever ties with “discriminatory” RE Advisory Council

News | Thu, 5th Feb 2015

The Cambridge Secular Society (CSS) has cut off links with the Cambridge RE council, and will now focus on helping parents withdraw their children from Collective Worship.

The Cambridgeshire Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE), has been accused of "discrimination" against people with different points-of-view and of failing to consider non-religious viewpoints, despite 30% of Cambridgeshire parents stating that they had no religion.

SACREs advise their Local Authority on "matters relating to collective worship in community schools and on religious education." SACREs are required to develop a locally agreed syllabus for RE, and they are formed of "representatives from the Church of England, from other Christian denominations, representatives of other faiths, and teacher members, and local authority representatives."

The Cambridge Secular Society reports that is has spent two years trying to gain representation on the committee, which currently has just one non-religious representative, who is not allowed to propose motions or to vote. The CSS says the SACRE have "restricted at every turn" their attempts to gain membership of the committee, and accused the Committee of acting like a "cabal of self-selected religious spokespeople."

Graham Davis, secretary of the CSS, said: "It is clear to us that the Cambridgeshire SACRE has no intention at all of working constructively with the CSS and is in fact actively seeking to silence the views of any group that disagrees with the status quo.

"Therefore it is with regret that the CSS has decided to withdraw from any further interaction with the Cambridgeshire SACRE.

"This is not our choice but has been forced upon us by the obstructions we have faced. As a result we have decided to instead work directly with parents and schools to ensure that the teaching of religious education is supportive of all families of all faiths and none."

Having been denied membership of the Cambridgeshire SACRE, the CSS is now going to focus on helping parents who do not want their children to take part in "broadly Christian" Collective Worship, which is still a legal requirement is all state schools.

The CSS has also called upon school to publish their policy towards children who are withdrawn from acts of worship to ensure that children are not made "to feel embarrassed or uncomfortable" if they do not take part in Collective Worship. The CSS is concerned that children are sometimes ostracised if withdrawn from Collective Worship.

The National Secular Society has previously drawn attention to the practical problems of withdrawing children from Collective Worship. One parent described how their son was "left sobbing" when he was taken out of an assembly, and said that he was "really upset and confused."

NSS campaigns manager, Stephen Evans, said: "There is no valid reason why religious groups should enjoy privileged input in determining what gets taught in schools. One of the fundamental problems with RE is that its curriculum is determined locally – either by faith schools or by committees dominated by religious interests.

"To ensure all young people receive the objective and balanced education they need to navigate the modern globalised world we live in, any subject covering religions, beliefs, and ethics should form part of the National Curriculum and be treated like any other subject. The next government should commit to carrying out the necessary reforms to ensure SACREs make way for educationalists.

"As for school worship, it's affront to young people's religious freedom and has no place in a 21st century education system. The law requiring it is indefensible and should be abolished at the earliest possible opportunity."