Faithful and regular worshippers
The British Humanist Association reports something I find completely astonishing.
A pupil in Telford has been told that he cannot ride a council-run bus to school along with his classmates because ‘he’s not Catholic’, it has been reported. The bus serves the Holy Trinity Academy in Priorslee, which was opened in 2015 jointly by the local Roman Catholic and Anglican dioceses, and despite the bus being operated by Telford and Wrekin Council, it is not open to children at the school who are either not religious or belong to a minority religion.
What on earth? The boy attends the school and the bus is run by the council (i.e. it’s public) but he can’t ride on it because he’s not Catholic? That’s grotesque – and punitive and cruel.
The British Humanist Association (BHA) has once again called on the exemptions in the Equality Act 2010 allowing for discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the provision of school transport to be scrapped.
Speaking about the situation, the father of the boy involved stated that the ‘the bus stops two minutes from the front door’, ‘but he was told that because he’s not Catholic, even though he goes to the school, he can’t use it’. A spokesperson for Telford and Wrekin Council said ‘Transport assistance is offered to pupils who are baptised Catholics and pupils whose families are faithful and regular worshippers in a Church of England Parish Church or other Christian affiliated churches if they live over the three-mile distance criteria for secondary aged pupils.’
Remarkably, discrimination of this kind is entirely legal, as the provision of school transport by local authorities is exempted from equalities legislation. The BHA has previously raised concerns about this exemption with the Department for Education, stating in their response to a 2014 consultation on the issue that ‘Providing one group of parents extra choice over others is unfair, and the nature of the discretionary spending likely causes religious and ethnic segregation’.
That’s just bonkers. It’s especially baffling since UK officialdom just loves to talk about community and cohesion, not to mention community cohesion – do they think this exemption is good for community cohesion? No doubt it unites the Christians against everyone else, but what about the community cohesion of the people of Telford, and the UK in general?
More broadly, why is it the business of government to reward people for being “faithful and regular worshippers”?
It’s an exemption too many.
Frankly, in my opinion, they shouldn’t even know he isn’t Catholic. I realize it’s a Catholic school, but if they are open to everyone, they shouldn’t even ask.
W. T. F.
Mind you, for all that talk of equality, community and cohesion, remember that the UK does actually have an official State religion and the Queen is its head. So, maybe not surprising on reflection.
Rob
I don’t see the connection between an established religion and exemptions allowing discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. An anti-establishment constitutional clause won’t stop that kind of sectarian nastiness.
The real culprits are the monumentally arrogant multi-culti social engineers who drafted the legislation and who value ‘community cohesion’ over human rights.
RJW, I suspect I don’t have to state for the record that I’m not a fan of religion, state sponsored or not, or of discrimination, state sponsored or not. But I just have anyway :-)
My point is that when a country HAS a state sanctioned official religion, that was established as a political tool to ensure control of the population and independence from pesky outside sources; it is hardly surprising that discrimination on the basis of religion occurs.
Wrong. Outrageous. Unsurprising on reflection. Should be changed.
Discrimination based on religion broadly speaking isn’t surprising, but denial of public services for that reason…that surprises me. The council pays for the bus so the bus should be for everyone.
The National Secular Society has written about this, it’s something to do with Catholic lobbying of an educational act:
Here’s the link:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/faith-schools-school-transport-briefing-paper.pdf
I wonder if we are talking past each other? I’ve said it’s wrong and outrageous. My initial reaction was surprise that such a thing was happening and was legal. Then I thought more. Britain is in fact a conservative religious political entity. It happens to have the trappings of a secular democracy, but it’s constitutional core intertwines religion and politics. It’s ruling classes are a part of that intertwined system and tend to extreme social conservatism.
There is no ‘public’ that isn’t also linked to the religious privilege inherent in the system. The secular trappings tend to make us forget that. The head of State is the Head of Church. The House of Lords includes 26 Bishops. The Church can propose new legislation and also propose amendment of existing legislation. None of this is especially compatible with a true secular democracy.
Seen in that context discrimination on the basis of religion (or lack) for a publicly funded bus going to a religious school doesn’t surprise, although it remains outrageous.
And just in case we are inclined to blame the Catholics alone, remember this school is a joint Catholic/Anglican venture.
Rob,
The issue is pro-Catholic discrimination, not anti-Catholic discrimination, which doesn’t seem compatible with the C of E as an established church, or the intentions of the Protestant ideologues who originally ‘established’ the Church of England. There have been many attempts at discrimination on the basis of religion in Australia and the US, both countries have anti-establishment clauses in their constitutions. So I’m not convinced that there is, necessarily, a connection.
Ophelia,
I’m not surprised, outraged and angry, definitely, but not surprised.
Rob,
Your comment @ 7 wasn’t visible when I posted my reply.
I’d agree that any country with an unelected upper house has rather tenuous claims to deomocratic status.
The Mother of Parliaments should learn from her numerous daughter parliaments, but that’s a different issue.
I live in the UK and I have never heard of anything like this before! In fact, if you’d tested me I would have said it was illegal.
There are a few faith schools – mostly Catholic – in the area I live in and I certainly have issues with some of their practices but this? This is outrageous.
It certainly seems illegal on its face, doesn’t it. Public buses turning away kids because they’re not Catholic. Really??!
That’s what really shocks me. If the buses were funded by a religious group I’d still be angry but I could at least see the argument. But if these buses really are council funded then that is tax-payers money being used to discriminate and that should not be allowed.
I’ve sent the local council a blistering email and started to publicise the issue.
And, #Rob and #RJW, on paper, yes, the UK ties a state religion into politics. In practice, all that provides is a toothless Head of State and Head of Church. By keeping the Monarch as those Heads on paper we effectively remove the chance of a Church Head actually doing anything remotely political. Remember, the Queen has no actual constitutional power at all. It’s a peculiarly British set-up that is largely thanks to he Stuart monarchs – almost uniformly a bunch of astonishingly incompetent, egocentric wankers to the point it’s amazing they even managed to breed unaided. Having tried Cromwell as a Head of State we rapidly discovered there were almost as many problems with that kind of leadership as with a hereditary monarch and rapidly reinstalled the Stuarts then set about removing all actual political power from the monarchy. In theory the monarch has to sign all law into existence but each monarch knows this is a ceremonial function. The first time Liz, Charlie or Wills tries to object is the day we will take the first steps to becoming a republic.
It’s the same with the church. Liz is a figurehead, we have a lot of CofE ceremonial but in practice the church has no political power. The House of Lords is certainly not an ideal institution in terms of an ideal democracy but, again, it doesn’t seem to do much worse than the second house in any other legislature. Remember the Lords is composed of more than just hereditary peers. There are also the Life Peers , created by the government – the Law Lords (senior judges) and, of course, the church Peers. Put together that creates a fairly random selection of politics and views though, yes, they tend towards the conservative, especially fiscally.
I know a woman who was an undersecretary who worked closely with the House of Lords. She actually had more time for them than the Commons. She said that, while there were the usual bunch of wankers in the Lords as you’d find in any random group, the majority took their roles very seriously. They weren’t the kind of “professional politicians” the Commons is currently infested with (young rich dudes from public schools with degrees in PPE from Oxford, campaigns funded by Daddy’s money, no experience of real life, all fired up with personal ambition and self-promotion) but people from a variety of backgrounds – including the working class – with diverse experiences of life, business and work.
I am reminded of Humphrey Appleby’s quote about government papers: “you always dispose of the difficult bit in the title. It does less harm there than on the statute books.”
Steamshovelmama,
Very interesting. The UK seems to be a quasi republic already. Here, in Australia the PM appoints a Vice Regal ‘representative’, the Governor General. The incumbents are usually prominent citizens and usually harmless, so far, with one exception, so the country is, for all practical purposes, a republic. I presume the process is similar for Canada and NZ. The Australian system is a lot cheaper to run, a minimum of pomp and ceremony and without the taxpayer supported huge royal household. The UK monarchy must be the most expensive in the world.
I don’t agree with your comments regarding the House of Lords, a democratically elected upper house is essential to democratic government, the Lords doesn’t have any legitimacy in my opinion.We have our share of incompetent wankers, party hacks, religious nutters and neoliberal ideologues here in the Senate, however they were elected, that’s democracy.
@ Steamshovelmama,
I hear where you are coming from, but all you’re really underlining is the dissonance of the image of Britain (internally and externally) as a modern secular democracy, with the structure of it as a political and religious union. I suspect most of the population think of the country as secular and the political/religious union via the monarch as a meaningless form. That’s surely why this example of the buses strikes surprise and outrage. However, it is that very supposedly meaningless link that allows the law to be written in the way it is and that gives sustenance to those who agree with it. True power stills lies with those who are deeply conservative.
As for the House of Lords, I’m sure there are many hard working and well meaning members. There is also some justification for having these members appointed in a manner that eliminates the race to the bottom popularity contest every few years (looking at you USA). But… the 26 Bishops do get the constitutional power to push for review of almost [1] any legislation existing or proposed, which is a power no other group has. Also, I believe that the Law Lords can not take up their seats in the HoL while they sit on the Supreme Court. I have to say of all the members of the HoL I find them to be the least useless and objectionable. There should be no place for the Bishops or Hereditary Peers (even in the current restricted form).
@RJW, the NZ situation is very similar to Australia. We have the Governor General, who is really a cipher. However, NZ lacks any second house at all. Essentially we have a Commons and the GG. This has enabled governments past to force through far reaching legislation (for both good and ill) on quite slender minorities in the House, and even minorities on the popular vote.
[1] The Bishops cannot change, or seek to change, the Act that grants, defines and constrains their power in that regard.
Dammit! Again!
Dude! Close your italics!
lol
hangs head in shame
I know. Bad day, and thanks :-)
You will recall I said that there would be no House of Lords in an ideal democratic system…. which the UK certainly isn’t. And I don’t know a country that genuinely has one of those.
You must also remember that the UK has Lords like the US has guns. It’s certainly not ideal, we may well be better off without them but, due to historical reason, preexisting in-statute laws and, basically, the way out whole system works, we won’t be losing them any time soon.
Yes, we have 26 Lords Spiritual – out of 807-ish. That’s not much of a voting block: about 3%. And it’s arguable that they do represent the people in Britain who actually are christian. The number has been limited to 26 since 1847 exactly to prevent the church having a disproportionate say.
The Lords Temporal are the rest of the House. They are made up of 92 Hereditary Peers whose political and social views are essentially going to be random. 2 are there because they hold royal offices related to parliamentary processes, 14 are elected by the whole house and 74 are chosen by the other Hereditary Peers.
The remaining number (691) are Life Peers who are appointed by the House of Commons – so nearly 86% of the Lords have been appointed by a democratically elected House of Commons. Of course, the downside of that is that the Young Turks in the Commons try to stuff the Lords with Life Peers who will be sympathetic to their cause though this occasionally backfires on them badly…
Should the Lords exist? Of course not. Does it make our parliament perform worse than other two house systems? I can’t see it. In fact, legislation that has been pushed through by the Lords includes:
Simplifying the quango system so it is less open to abuse
Demanding support and finance for world class stem cell research facilities in the UK
Ensuring special needs children are entitled to finance and support that enable them to attend mainstream schools
Preventing the removal of Legal Aid for people with no income
Ensuring that funding and treatment for the mentally ill is treated equivalently to that of the physically ill.
Legitimacy is conferred by the system. You say the Lords does not have legitimacy – what you mean is that you, personally, disapprove of it – which is a perfectly fair reaction but within our system it has perfect legitimacy.
It’s also worth remembering that, as the UK’s recent democratically elected parties show clearly, democracy is not a panacea for bad government. It is not the best system, merely the least-worst. I’m a pragmatist. Does the Lords work? Yes. Does it do some worthwhile things? Yes. Does it override the worst excesses of the the professional politicians? Sometimes, yes. Can we get rid of it? No. Would we actually be better off without it? Unlikely. Therefore I shall save my outrage and zeal for reform for more important matters.
Lastly, the entanglement of church and state has nothing to do with this poor lad and his bus service. That is a specific piece of legislation, separate from anything else which can be changed or repealed without any affect on the monarch as Head of the CofE. This is a Catholic school, remember. We have no official status for catholicism within the legislature. Quite the reverse in fact.
Steamshovelmama, read again. The school is a joint Catholic/Anglican school. Anglican, the official religion of Britain. The religion that is headed by the head of state. That piece of legislation doesn’t represent a mistake or an aberration. It is a feature. People campaigned against it recognising how it could be used. Others opted to keep it, knowing how it could be used.
The mindset that allows the mixing of politics and religion…
Sure there are worse democracies, but let’s not pretend this is an inadvertent one in a thousand fuckup in the legislation.
Yes, I made that point badly. I emphasised the catholic aspect of the school as that is not our state religion. Our state religion is Anglicanism so already this is not a case a favour being granted because of the so-called entanglement of church and state. Whatever legal exemption they are using will equally apply to all-Catholic faith schools. Or Baptist, Methodist or Seventh Day Adventist schools. Or for that matter, Islamic, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu faith schools – so how has it anything at all to do with having the Head of State also be the Head of the Church of England? A general exemption is, by definition, not privileging an “Official Religion”, especially when, in practice, that “offiicial religion” is a ceremonial, vestigial function.
For the point you’re making to be correct we would a) have to see privileging of CofE schools in a way that does not apply to other denominations and faiths and b) for this to be a “feature” we would have to reject Hanlon’s Razor, something I can see no reason for doing.
I’m going to quote RJW from above
I don’t see the connection between an established religion and exemptions allowing discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. An anti-establishment constitutional clause won’t stop that kind of sectarian nastiness
The fact is that whether or not religion is involved in politics seems to have very little to do with a formal separation of church and state. Look at the US for example. Absolute separation of church and state on the statute books, written into the very constitution that underpins their laws and yet religion is a huge force within their politics – to the point that an openly atheist politician will face huge problems getting elected and one of the utterly moronic arguments against Barack Obama is that his is suspected not to be a Christian.
I’m not sure I understand your last two paragraphs. For a start I’m not arguing that religion influencing politics is a good thing. It absolutely isn’t. My point is that in Britain the CofE has been defanged, depowered and stripped of temporal influence in a similar way to the way we have rendered the monarch a ceremonial position. That despite having an official religion, that religion is not privileged.
For the record I dislike faith schools of any stripe. I would prefer it if all schools were fully secular.
The other thing is, you refer to people campaigning against a particular piece of legislation – which one is it? I couldn’t find any details when I did a quick bit of research but that was a couple of days ago. In particular I’m wondering whether the school is an Academy which would have a lot of independence and almost total budgetary independence. If they are funding the bus service there may be a loophole there – or another loophole (no, I’m not fond of this aspect of Academy administration either. It’s a much more important thing to fight against than reform of the House of Lords.)
OK, I’ve found some more out about this.
The parents of the boy in question have chosen to send him to Holy Trinity Academy (yes, bloody academy status, thank you David Cameron) rather than to one of the geographically nearest schools. Because that has been their choice, the local council expects the parents to arrange and fund school journeys. Where the geographically nearest school has been accepted it is the local council’s role to ensure that journey is safe and affordable – for instance some pupils may be eligible for a free bus pass and the council must ensure there are safe road crossing places etc.
Where religion comes in to it – and I really don’t agree with this at all – is that if a parent wishes their child to go to a school of their faith and the nearest one of those is not the nearest school then then a local council may have a policy that accepts the right of the parent to have faith appropriate education and will then subsidise transport. Apparently Telford and Wrekin local council do indeed have this policy.
The central government Equality Act requires that local authorities do not discriminate on grounds of belief but this act, apparently, does not apply to school transport. And there was a Jont Committee on Human Rights that actually scrutinised this legislation and who warned that this kind of issue might occur. (Headed by MP Harriet Harman, 4 Labour MPs, 6 Conservative, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 cross bench – 6 from the Lords and 6 from the Commons).
Time to lobby my local MP – who is, unfortunately, a socially conservative (Labour Party) old duffer who has been in his safe seat for years. Last time I lobbied him was on the gay marriage question and I was distinctly unimpressed by his answer…
Thank you for that. Very informative.
[…] a comment by Steamshovelmama on Faithful and regular worshippers, a post about a council-funded bus service […]