Copyright: (C) BHA 15
Considering different creationist bids:
• Creationist Everyday Champions Church’s bid to establish Exemplar Academy appears to have been withdrawn, with the website having vanished prior to the application deadline.
• The fate of other proposals from CST schools such as Destiny Christian School in Bedford and Barnsley Christian School is unknown, but it is unlikely that they were successful.
• Similarly, it is unknown whether CofE school Clayton Academy, proposed by creationist Jesmond Parish Church – who have strong links to the Christian Institute – has progressed.
• Interestingly, creationism is not given as a cause for Sheffield Christian Free School’s rejection, in contrast to when Everyday Champions Academy’s bid was rejected last year.

In terms of other faith-based bids:
• 5 CofE schools have gone to interview: Bradford Girls' Grammar School; Fulham Boys School; Bristol Cathedral Choir Primary School; University Cathedral School, Chester; and St Mary's Hampton Church of England Primary School, Richmond. Proposals for an Anglican school in St Albans have been put back to 2014.
• 1 Greek Orthodox proposal, St Andrew The Apostle Greek Orthodox School in Trent Park, has likewise progressed.
• 5 other Christian proposals have also gained interviews: Sevenoaks Christian School; Durham Free School; Oasis Community School, Southwark; Kings School, Hove; and Tyndale Community School, Oxford. The Proposed Priorslee School plan is also progressing, although as the impetus for that is from the local authority, it is unclear as to what extent that is occurring within the Free School schedule. Oasis Southwater Community School (with Horsham Churches Together) was withdrawn for 2013 and Weston-super-Mare Christian Academy was rejected; both will now be proposed in 2014.
• 3 Jewish proposals: Leeds Jewish Free School ; South London Jewish Primary School, Wandsworth; and The New Jewish Primary School Finchley have gained interviews.
• 1 Sikh proposal, Leicester Sikh School, has also gained an interview.

In addition, 3 Steiner groups and 1 Maharishi proposal have progressed. The fate of other proposals is unknown. The BHA believes it has only been able to identify about one-third of all proposals.

BHA Faith Schools Campaigner Richy Thompson commented, ‘We welcome the government’s continuing opposition to proposed creationist schools, and are glad to see that no such proposals have been accepted. We hope that the new rules introduced in January to preclude the teaching of pseudoscience should discourage groups from even applying next year.

‘However, we remain concerned at the number and diversity of faith-based proposals for Free Schools. The speed with which new “faith” schools are opening continues to accelerate. The BHA is not opposed to Free Schools, but worries that they have the potential to teach skewed curricula from unqualified teachers.’]]>
The Bill is sponsored by Lord Harrison, member of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group and British Humanist Association (BHA) Distinguished supporter. The first substantive discussion of the aims and contents of the Bill will take place at its Second Reading, the date of which will be announced after the First Reading.

This latest effort to give humanist marriage ceremonies legal validity in England and Wales comes after the introduction of a Bill in the Irish Parliament last month with the same purpose, and the Humanist Society of Scotland reporting record numbers of couples opting for humanist ceremonies following a change in the law in 2005 that permitted the registration of celebrants to conduct legally recognised humanist marriage ceremonies.]]>
The letter reads:

Sir – Since the formation of the coalition, a lot of public concern has been expressed over the potential establishment of creationist Free Schools. This concern resulted in the Government changing the rules for Free Schools to prevent them from teaching pseudoscience (Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists, 15 January 2012).

However, not enough attention has been paid to what we believe to be two equally grave threats to science education, namely Maharishi and Steiner schools. Maharishi schools follow the educational methods of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, guru of the Transcendental Meditation movement, while Steiner education is based on an esoteric/occultist movement called Anthroposophy, founded by Austrian mystic Rudolf Steiner (Holistic unit will 'tarnish' Aberdeen University reputation, 29 April 2012).

The Maharishi School has as its specialist subject the ‘Science of Creative Intelligence’, which is not based on science. It also teaches the ‘Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health’, a system of herbal medicine, most of which lacks evidence of efficacy and safety. Anthroposophy, or spiritual science, is centred on beliefs in karma, reincarnation and advancing children’s connection to the spirit world.

The first Steiner Academy opened in 2008, with a Free School pre-approved by the Government to open this September. The first Maharishi School opened last September. Both groups have interviews to open more Free Schools in 2013. We believe that the new rules on teaching pseudoscience mean that no more Steiner or Maharishi schools should open.

Pavan Dhaliwal, Head of Public Affairs, British Humanist Association
Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary Medicine, University of Exeter
David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology, University College London and blogger, dcscience.net
Simon Singh, science writer
Andy Lewis, Quackometer.net
Alan Henness, zenosblog.com
Melanie Byng
Richard Byng, medical academic
James Gray
Mark Hayes
David Simpson

Applications to open Steiner Free Schools in Exeter, Leeds and Suffolk (the Fullfledge Ecology School) and a Maharishi Free School in Richmond in 2013 have recently been accepted to interview by the Department for Education (DfE). Progress of other applications is unknown.]]>
Sections 406-7 of the Education Act 1996 forbids ‘the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school’, and requires balanced treatment of political issues. In March, the CES wrote to all Catholic secondary schools in England and Wales, asking them to draw attention to a letter against same sex marriage from the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark which was read out at Sunday Mass on 11 March, and to a petition against same sex marriage from the Coalition for Marriage.

In a written statement, Welsh Minister for Education and Skills Leighton Andrews sets out that the Education Act has likely been broken, and that he has written to all Catholic secondary address this. In his letter to Catholic schools, Mr Andrews explains that ‘Whilst the petition itself is not directly related to a party political matter it does in my view relate to political matters generally as the petition is seeking to persuade people to lobby the Westminster Government to prevent a change in the law… I trust you will ensure that if your pupils have been made aware of this correspondence they will also be made aware of the converse view in order to give them a balanced perspective.’

The BHA wrote to Mr Andrews on the 26 April about this matter, and welcomed the news later that day of the investigation. BHA Faith Schools Campaigner Richy Thompson commented, ‘We are pleased to see that the Welsh Government is in agreement with our own conclusions on this matter. This seems to us to be one of the most clear-cut examples of political indoctrination in schools that has ever been seen. We hope that the UK Government investigation reaches the same conclusion.’

However, the Welsh Government also concluded that the CES’s communications with schools did not break the Equality Act 2010, as ‘Whilst schools are free to employ the materials provided as suggested, it is incumbent on them to do so in a balanced way’ – and not incumbent on the CES. Mr Thompson continued, ‘It seems to us to be likely that many schools will have stepped across the line and broken equalities law, as well as the law on political balance. The school in the original story, for example, described marriage and civil partnership as “unnatural”. Such behaviour is clearly going to leave LGBT pupils feeling victimised by their schools, trapped in a hostile environment. This is a very sad state of affairs.’]]>
On Collective Worship, respondents were informed that ‘Some people have proposed that the laws which require state funded schools to provide daily collective worship should be replaced by a requirement that they hold assemblies which consider moral and ethical issues shared by a range of different religious and non-religious beliefs.’ They were asked to what extent they would support or oppose such a change of law. The poll found that 41% supported such a change, while 36% did not.

And on RE, it was explained that ‘Some people would like the law changed so that non-religious views are taught in state funded schools alongside religious views.’ Again, respondents were asked to what extent they would support or oppose such a change of law. The poll found that 43% supported such a change, while 32% did not.

Reacting to the results, BHA Education Campaigner Richy Thompson said, ‘It is welcome that only a minority oppose inclusive reform of the laws on RE and Collective Worship that govern schools in Wales. In RE, many schools and local authorities do already recommend the teaching of non-religious beliefs alongside religious ones, and we hope today’s result will lead to a strengthening of that trend. And on Collective Worship, today’s results reinforce previous findings that the law as it stands is unpopular with parents, unpopular with pupils, and unpopular with teachers. It is time that this archaic requirement is replaced with something genuinely inclusive that can open up assemblies to all pupils and staff, and build a sense of genuine community within our schools.’

The results of the survey come just as the Evangelical Alliance Wales is to give evidence to the National Assembly for Wales’ Petitions Committee on 1 May on the subject of Collective Worship. The BHA is currently supporting an e-petition calling for the law to be changed. However, this petition has fewer signatures than a rival petition from the Evangelical Alliance, which prompted the Alliance to claim more support for its position than the BHA has for its own.

Commenting on the competing petitions, Mr Thompson continued, ‘The Evangelical Alliance’s petition may have had more signatures, but this was still only 0.1% of the population. We suspected its results were not representative of the country as a whole, so decided to put the question to the test. We are pleased that we have been proved right.’]]>
In addition to the BHA and EFC, the letter is signed by Brook, FPA, Platform 51, Abortion Rights, the Women’s Health and Equality Consortium, Rape Crisis England and Wales, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the National Union of Students, the National Union of Teachers, the Trades Union Congress and the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. The letter reads:

We are writing to express our concern about the false claims being made by groups invited to give lessons in schools on abortion and contraception, and to urge you to take action to prevent these claims being repeated. In particular, we are referring to the work of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), Lovewise and Life.

To be clear, it is not the anti-abortion ideology of these groups that we are challenging. What prompts this letter are issues of fact: many of the claims these groups make are simply false. For example, there is no evidence that abortion can increase the risk of breast cancer or infertility; no evidence that hormonal contraception can cause an abortion; no evidence for a medical condition called ‘post abortion trauma’, or indeed that abortion causes more distress for women than carrying an unintended pregnancy to term.

SPUC and others have been repeatedly making these claims for a number of years. We believe it is time for the government to intervene. The Secretary of State for Education has the power to issue guidance on sex and relationships education to ensure that children are protected from inappropriate teaching materials and all state-funded schools must have regard to this guidance. This must surely include preventing materials that present false claims. We believe you should exercise your power accordingly and issue guidance to prevent lessons which can cause harm to young people – such harm would be caused if they are deterred from using contraception because they have been misinformed about its efficacy, or because they believe they will be infertile following abortion.

We therefore hope that you will make clear in future guidance on related matters that materials used in lessons which cover abortion and contraception must be based on fact insofar as they relate to medical and health matters. No group should be permitted to make claims for which there is no evidence.

Education For Choice’s Lisa Hallgarten commented, ‘Schools which invite these kinds of speakers in are letting their pupils down badly. It is poor educational practice to invite guests in to deliberately misinform young people; and it is poor pastoral care to deliberately promote fear and stigma about a common and safe medical procedure. It is time for Gove, School Governors and Head Teachers to take action to stop this happening.’

BHA Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal commented, ‘It is well past time that evidence is a criterion when deciding which groups are invited into schools to give talks on abortion. A number of groups opposed to abortion are doing daily talks in schools on sexual health, and in doing so, these groups are not just expressing ideological opposition, but presenting claims that are simply not true. You would not want someone giving a talk in science that claims the earth is 6,000 years old, or in geography claiming that the earth is flat. So why should we be so accepting of people making false claims in sex education? We urge the government to take action to end this situation.’]]>
PinkNews.co.uk has reported a spokesperson for the Department for Education as saying that: ‘Schools have a responsibility under law to ensure children are insulated from political activity and campaigning in the classroom. While ‘faith’ schools, rightly, have the freedom to teach about sexual relations and marriage in the context of their own religion, that should not extend to political campaigning.

‘Officials are looking into this as the Education Secretary and other ministers are anxious to establish the full facts of this case and will be meeting representatives of the Catholic Education Service shortly.’

The BHA believes that sections 406-7 of the Education Act 1996, regarding political indoctrination and requirement for balance, and section 149 of the Equality Act 2011, regarding public sector equality duty may have been broken. The BHA has expressed interest in taking a legal case on this matter, and is seeking a pupil to assist in this.

BHA Faith Schools Campaigner Richy Thompson commented: ‘On Thursday we wrote to Michael Gove and called for just such an investigation. We are glad to see that this is now occurring.

‘Any gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender pupil at a school whose head declares that same sex marriage and civil partnerships are unnatural is obviously going to feel discriminated against and trapped. Action to remedy this situation cannot come soon enough.’

However, Richy did have a note of caution: ‘The BHA believes that what has been done here is likely to have broken the Equality Act, as well as laws against political indoctrination. The Government’s statement suggests that only the latter area is being considered, which unfortunately fits with past behaviour. We hope that the Government will fully consider both areas of legislation.’]]>
The report also found that almost two-thirds of the state-maintained ‘faith’ schools to open in the last five years have done so outside of competition, whilst for schools without a religious character, the number is less than one in six. The BHA says that the findings reveal a biased system, in which religious organisations are uniquely privileged and local democracy is subverted.

The report examines the period from May 2007 (when new rules were established) through to February 2012 (when they were amended), and also looks at school closures. Other findings of the report include:

• 23% (23/101) of mainstream school proposals through competition were faith-based, versus 55% (17/31) of maintained proposals outside of competition. 58% (23/40) of faith-based proposals were in competition, versus 85% (78/92) of other proposals.
• The Catholic Church is a particular offender when it comes to avoiding competitions. They submitted only one bid for a school in competition – compared with 14 by the Church of England – whereas both groups had the same number of bids to open schools outside of competition.
• Many schools are closing and re-opening to acquire a religious character, but no schools are doing so to lose one and become inclusive. And no schools lost a religious character through amalgamation, but 32 without a religious character gained one.

Recently the BHA announced that it is to take on a legal case against just such proposals for state-funded Catholic schools in Richmond – challenging the attempt of the Council to open a ‘faith’ school without competition under new rules introduced by the Education Act 2011 on 1 February.

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented, ‘If further proof were needed that the system is tilted in favour of state-funded religious schools which discriminate in their admissions and against inclusive schools, this is it. When asked, the public do not want religious schools – they want more inclusive schools. But religious organisations continue to open schools by the back door, collaborating with local authorities to avoid competition entirely. This option has been phenomenally successful, and as a result, the proportion of all schools that have a religious character is rising alarmingly fast. Taken together with the preference shown in government guidance for community schools to close rather than religious ones, we see a system which militates against inclusion.

‘We hope that our legal case in Richmond will challenge this practice. We believe the system of school organisation should instead be promoting new schools that are inclusive of all pupils and staff, regardless of their religion or belief.’]]>
Last month, the CES wrote to all Catholic secondary schools and asked them to draw attention to a letter against same sex marriage from the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark which was read out at Sunday Mass on 11 March. The CES also asked schools to ‘draw attention’ to pupils as young as 11, a petition against same sex marriage from the Coalition for Marriage.

The story was initially reported yesterday on PinkNews.co.uk, with the BHA being the first to suggest that the laws on political balance might have been broken. The BHA announced that it is looking for a pupil at a Catholic secondary school to take a legal case forward, and today Education Campaigner Richy Thompson wrote an article for Pink News appealing for such a student.

The Catholic Education Service, meanwhile, has indicated that it does not see that it has broken the law, and intends to continue to promote the petition to over-16 year olds.

A Welsh government spokesperson has now told BBC Wales' Dragon's Eye programme that ‘The education minister has seen the press stories and has asked officials to investigate. All schools must ensure issues are taught in a way that does not subject pupils to discrimination.’

Responding to the latest news, Mr Thompson commented, ‘We welcome the announcement that the Welsh government are investigating any potential law-breaking, and will offer to work with them on this matter. In the meantime, we are still interested in taking on a legal case, and hope to find a pupil who is willing to work with us on this.

‘It is undoubtedly the case that the Catholic Education Service’s actions have victimised many pupils. We do not think such behaviour is an acceptable part of society.’]]>
The new BHA website debunks arguments used in support of keeping Bishops in the Lords. It encourages supporters to write to their MPs, copied to Nick Clegg as minister for constitutional reform.

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented, ‘The Government’s Draft House of Lords Reform Bill proposes to increase the proportion of the Bishops from 3% of appointed peers to anything between 12% and 17% of appointed peers, depending on the eventual size of a reformed chamber. If the Government’s proposals were enacted, Anglican Bishops would likely outnumber SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein and Green Peers combined.

‘Anything from 60% to 74% of the public wants to see reserved places for Bishops go – keeping them is unpopular. It is also unjustified – none of the arguments advanced to keep them hold water and even if you believe that Bishops have something important to add to debate, that is not a sufficient reason why they should have special reserved places rather than come through the same appointments producer as anyone else. The truth is that places for Bishops are an anachronistic feudal hangover, the retention of which is supported not by democratic will or principles of public accountability but by opaque vested interests.’]]>
Last month, the CES wrote to all Catholic secondary schools and asked them to draw attention to a letter against same sex marriage from the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark which was read out at Sunday Mass on 11 March. The CES also asked schools to ‘draw attention’ to pupils as young as 11, a petition against same sex marriage from the Coalition for Marriage.

Pink News’s article highlights that the CES’s actions likely broke the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination against pupils based on their sexual orientation. The BHA believe the CES’s actions likely also break sections 406-7 of the Education Act 1996, which forbids ‘the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school’, and requires balanced treatment of political issues. This law was successfully used in 2007 to stop schools showing Al Gore’s climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, without also explaining scientific errors in the film.

BHA Faith Schools Campaigner Richy Thompson commented, ‘This action by the Catholic Education Service is absolutely outrageous. Not only might this break equalities legislation, it also breaks laws against political partisanship. If any pupil at one of the schools concerned is interested in challenging this practice at law, we urge them to get in touch with us.’]]>
It is unlawful for a special school to be formally designated with a religious character. However, Academies and Free Schools can have a ‘faith ethos’ without formally being designated. This means they are allowed to religiously select all the governors; use a religious genuine occupational requirement in appointing senior staff; and also put a religious slant on some aspects of the curriculum, such as sex and relationships education (SRE).

The first Special Academies opened in September 2011, with the first Special Free Schools to open in September 2012. The 2013 application form for Free Schools asked for the first time whether schools would have a ‘faith ethos’, including for Special Schools. In addition, on 1 April, Gatehouse School, a community special school in Milton Keynes, closed and re-opened as Stephenson School, the first sponsored Special Academy. The principal sponsor is St Paul’s Catholic School. Although there is no indication that St Paul’s intends to religiously influence Stephenson in any way, this is now a risk.

In addition, it was reported last month that a group of parents in Sevenoaks are exploring a bid for a blind Free School, following the impending closure of Dorton House School, a Non-Maintained Special School. They are considering incorporating their bid into the also proposed Sevenoaks Christian School.

BHA Faith Schools Campaigner Richy Thompson commented, ‘We believe that all state-funded schools should be secular, equally inclusive of all pupils and staff, regardless of religion or belief. However, it seems to us to be particularly important that schools catering for pupils with special educational needs, who in some cases may be less able to come to reasoned conclusions on questions of religion, do not impose a certain religious ethos on pupils, or deprive them of the high quality, comprehensive information they need from SRE.

‘We will continue to monitor the situation closely, to ensure that no pupil has their education negatively affected in these areas, as a result of these changes in statute.’]]>
‘Faith ethos’ schools are a growing but largely hidden type of state-funded school. In the state-maintained school sector (i.e. community, voluntary and foundation schools), if the authority or foundation that runs the school wants to appoint any governors on the basis of their religion, then the school must formally register with the government as having a religious character. However, in the independent school sector, such registration is permissive; and as Academies and Free Schools are legally independent schools, it is left up to the authority in these two types of school as well.

Formally registering with a religious character allows a school to gain certain control over its admissions, employment, RE and Collective Worship that it would not otherwise enjoy. However, as all Academies and Free Schools enjoy a large number of freedoms, it is therefore the case that faith groups that do not formally register their schools as having a religious character still get a lot of control over the school that they would not get with a state-maintained school. These ‘faith ethos’ schools, as they are known, are allowed to religiously select all the governors; use a religious genuine occupational requirement in appointing senior staff; and also put a religious slant on some aspects of the curriculum, such as sex and relationships education (SRE). Finally, a school could gain or lose a ‘faith ethos’ at any time simply through a change in ownership – no discussion with the local community is required.

‘Faith ethos’ Academies have been feasible since at least 2003, but have been growing rapidly in number since the coalition government started expanding the number of Academies in 2010. It is unclear exactly how many there are, but known examples include Canary Wharf College, Priors Free School , Sandbach School and Discovery New School – four of the six Christian Free Schools to open in 2011; Swindon Academy, a United Learning Trust Academy set up in 2007 that shares the ULT’s Anglican ethos; and the Grace Academies of Coventry, Darlaston and Solihull, which have a Christian ethos.

In addition, the Church of England has this year announced that it will encourage former community schools, upon converting to Academies, to join into partnership with it and perhaps adopt an Anglican ethos. This theme was further explored in the recent Chadwick Report.

The results of this Freedom of Information request reveal that even the DfE do not know which schools have a ‘faith ethos’.

BHA Faith Schools Campaigner Richy Thompson commented, ‘It’s unbelievable that the government doesn’t even know which Academies and Free Schools are ‘faith’ schools and which are not. These schools don’t even have to make their ethos obvious to parents, teachers and the local community. How are parents meant to know whether the Academy or Free School they are sending their children to is going to teach high quality SRE, or teach that contraception should never be used and abstinence before marriage is the best approach? How are they meant to know if there is a requirement that the head of the school must be of a certain religion?

‘From an equalities point of view, it is vitally important that all government bodies record whether they are contracting out with religious or secular organisations – in order to prevent such unforeseen discrimination occurring. We are amazed that the DfE have failed to do this.’]]>
The British Humanist Association (BHA) has expressed disappointment at Mr Gove’s support for the report and the continuing rise in the number of ‘faith’ schools.

Tony Baldry, Conservative MP for Banbury and a Church Estates Commissioner, asked Mr Gove:

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the report, chaired by Priscilla Chadwick, on the future of Church of England schools? Does he agree that the recent changes in education introduced by the Government provide opportunities for the continuing involvement of the Church of England in education, particularly in delivering distinctive and inclusive new academies?

Michael Gove replied:

I absolutely agree. Education on both sides of the border was driven in the first instance by the vigorous missionary activity of Churches, and we praise and cherish the role of the Church of England in making sure that children have an outstanding and inclusive education. I welcome the report, and I look forward to working with Bishop John Pritchard to extend the role of the Church in the provision of schools.

BHA Faith Schools Campaigner Richy Thompson commented, ‘While unsurprising, it is disappointing to see for the first time a clear endorsement from Michael Gove for the Church of England’s new report, and their plans to keep opening “faith” schools. We hope that this cannot also be read as support for their aim to do so at four times the rate they have been doing up until now – a major acceleration.’

The question and answer mainly focussed on new ‘faith’ Academies, but the Church and other faith providers also continue to open Voluntary Aided schools outside of competition, ‘by the back door’. Mr Thompson continued, ‘Last week we announced that we are to take on a legal case against proposals to open two Catholic schools in Richmond upon Thames. We hope that if we are successful in this case, this may help slow the expansion in the number of religious schools.’]]>
The submission has been made in support of four cases of supposed Christian discrimination that have all been previously lost when heard in English tribunals and courts. A previous intervention by Lord Carey into one of the cases received an extremely robust response from Lord Justice Laws in April 2010, with Lord Laws saying:

'The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.'

Commenting on Lord Carey’s submission to the ECHR, British Humanist Association (BHA) Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal said: ‘It is regrettable that Lord Carey has again made an intervention in such provocative terms despite these cases having been publicly refuted and found to be without merit. Lord Carey’s comments play into the hands of socially-conservative Christian lobby groups by encouraging skewed and misleading coverage of religion and belief in society today.

‘This narrative of systemic Christian persecution in the UK is a harmful fiction that serves to pollute dialogue between people of different faiths and none, and has no basis in reality. The Church that Lord Carey used to lead remains the state church, with reserved seats in our legislature, and along with other religious organisations shares wide exemptions from equality legislation, and control over a third of state schools; these are not symptoms of persecution. ‘

Ms Dhaliwal continued, ‘It is notable that prominent religious figures, including Archbishop Vincent-Nichols, the leader of Catholic Church in England and Wales, have rejected this notion of Christian persecution, and we trust the ECHR will do likewise, and echo the earlier rulings in domestic courts when the cases are heard later this year.’

Notes

For further comment or information contact Pavan Dhaliwal, Head of Public Affairs at pavan@humanism.org.uk or on 0773 843 5059.

Read the Daily Telegraph article on Lord Carey’s submission

Read Lord Justice Law’s ruling on the McFarlane case, including comments on Lord Carey’s statement of support

The British Humanist Association is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. It promotes a secular state and equal treatment in law and policy of everyone, regardless of religion or belief.
The submission has been made in support of four cases of supposed Christian discrimination that have all been previously lost when heard in English tribunals and courts. A previous intervention by Lord Carey into one of the cases received an extremely robust response from Lord Justice Laws in April 2010, with Lord Laws saying:

The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.

Commenting on Lord Carey’s submission to the ECHR, British Humanist Association (BHA) Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal said: ‘It is regrettable that Lord Carey has again made an intervention in such provocative terms despite these cases having been publicly refuted and found to be without merit. Lord Carey’s comments play into the hands of socially-conservative Christian lobby groups by creating and headline-grabbing statements.

‘This narrative of Christian persecution in the UK is a harmful fiction that serves to pollute dialogue between people of different faiths and none, and has no basis in reality. The Church that Lord Carey formerly led remains the state church, with reserved seats in our legislature, and along with other religions shares wide exemptions from equality legislation, and control over a third of state schools; these are not symptoms of persecution. ‘

Ms Dhaliwal continued, ‘It is notable that prominent religious figures, including Archbishop Vincent-Nichols, the leader of Catholic Church in England and Wales, have rejected this notion of Christian persecution, and we trust the ECHR will do likewise, and echo the earlier rulings of English courts when the cases are heard later this year.’.’

Notes

For further comment or information contact Pavan Dhaliwal, Head of Public Affairs at pavan@humanism.org.uk or on 0773 843 5059.

Read the Daily Telegraph article on Lord Carey’s submission

Read Lord Justice Law’s ruling on the McFarlane case, including comments on Lord Carey’s statement of support

The British Humanist Association is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. It promotes a secular state and equal treatment in law and policy of everyone, regardless of religion or belief.]]>
New rules that came into force on 1 February state that ‘If a local authority in England think a new school needs to be established in their area, they must seek proposals for the establishment of an Academy’ [i.e. a Free School]. Proposals are then adjudicated by the Department for Education (DfE).

Richmond Council has been clear that it thinks the borough needs a Catholic secondary school to complement its existing Catholic primaries, and that there is also a need for a new Catholic primary to provide additional places. They say that the Act allows them to go ahead with Voluntary Aided Catholic schools without first following the above rule. The BHA is concerned that this offers a way of opening religious schools in the face of public opposition by the back door, avoiding the competition that would otherwise be required.

RISC, a local grass-roots campaign against the threat of a discriminatory new school which ran a petition supported by well over 3,000 local people, has tried to prevent this but is being rebuffed by the council. In this situation, the BHA has stepped in to support legal action against the Council in support of the need for other bids to be considered.

Jeremy Rodell, the coordinator of RISC, said ‘Our primary focus is to ensure that any new schools opening in the borough cannot discriminate against children simply because of the religion or beliefs of their parents. RISC has strong local support, ranging from humanists to fair-minded Catholics, but lacks the resources to mount a legal challenge alone. So we very much welcome the BHA’s decision to take this case forward.’

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson said, ‘We have seen repeatedly how religious providers largely avoid competition when establishing state-funded schools, and instead make arrangements directly with local authorities to open schools without local people being offered any alternative. These approaches to local authorities have always been successful. If the practice is not challenged, we face a future of discriminatory state-funded religious schools being opened without the same rules applying to them as to inclusive schools. In an ideal education system, there would be no state-funded religious discrimination at all, but for as long as it is unfortunately permitted, at least new schools should be opened as a result of fair competition on a level playing field.’

‘It is unacceptable that the system is so biased in favour of religious bids, and that local authorities are collaborating so much with religious organisations to open schools in this undemocratic way. Any case that can seek to redress this balance, by narrowing the range of circumstances in which faith-based proposals can avoid competition, and therefore increasing democratic choice and accountability, is to be welcomed.’]]>