Cllr Sundip Meghani's First Person column appears in today's Leicester Mercury:
Our heritage is slowly being chipped away
Councillor Sundip Meghani considers the controversial issue of public prayers
Earlier this month the High Court ruled that a town council in Devon had acted unlawfully by allowing prayers to be said at council meetings. These are the same kind of prayers incidentally that routinely take place in the council chamber here in Leicester and in the House of Commons.
As a lawyer I can see how this decision came about but as a councillor and as a person of faith I was disappointed with the judgment.
In terms of the legal aspects, I understand that Bideford Town Council is planning to appeal against the outcome of the judicial review, which had originally been brought by the National Secular Society.
I also understand the Government has fast-tracked a new statutory power to allow councils to circumvent the ruling in the interim.Whatever the end result it is fair to say that this case has certainly ignited a great deal of public debate, with Baroness Warsi, Richard Dawkins, the Queen and Polly Toynbee – to name but a few big hitters – all recently weighing in with their views on religion.
I can certainly appreciate the strength of feeling on both sides, particularly as we live in a country that is officially neither secular nor religious.
On the one hand our head of state is also the head of the Church of England and Bishops in the House of Lords influence the legislative process. On the other hand Parliament is supreme and the rule of law applies equally to all, irrespective of faith.
Since my election in 2011 I have attended every meeting of the Leicester City Council and I have observed prayers at the start of each of those meetings.
To his credit, every time the Lord Mayor has called upon his chaplain to lead the prayers, it has always felt to me as if the Lord Mayor was simply inviting councillors to participate, rather than insisting that they do so.
I believe that the rule of law should always take precedence over religion because that is the safest and fairest way to guarantee equality for all.
However, I also believe that expressions of faith in public life are a good thing, and that elected representatives should be free to publicly express a belief in God, and even ask for guidance in their work.
I cannot help but feel that this harmless tradition of prayers at council meetings has been hijacked, so as to try and open a new front in the on-going war of attrition between – and I'll choose my words carefully here – the "very religious" and the "very non-religious". Sadly that leaves those of us in the moderate majority stuck in the middle as yet another part of our nation's heritage is steadily chipped away.
Sundip Meghani is a Labour and Co-operative councillor for Beaumont Leys.
Take the train, Bishop!
I refer to the article by the Bishop of Leicester, "This is not the time to build a secular state" (First Person, February 18) in which he asks, "what would a secular state look like?"
In fact, if he takes the train from St Pancras to Paris he will be in one, for France is a secular state. Otherwise he can travel to Mexico or Turkey, which are both countries with serious problems, but in the latter case are partly caused by a religious party trying to get its hands on the reins of government.
However, instead of taking a trip on Eurostar, he paints a fantasy-picture of what he thinks life would be like.
In fact, his statement that there would be "no great public services" really is nonsense.
The churches can have their services as much as they wish, except that they should stand on their own two feet and not expect the rest of us to support their bishops in the House of Lords, their subsidised chaplains in the armed forces and in hospitals (costing the taxpayer nearly £30 million a year).
He sees cathedrals, churches, gurdwaras and mosques being razed to the ground.
Perhaps he is thinking of the period of the formation of his own schismatic church, which destroyed and plundered the great monastery buildings, such as Leicester Abbey at the time of the Reformation.
He falls back on the statement that the CofE has shaped and coloured our national life; however that is not an unqualified good. Can he not see that the non CofE members of Bideford Council may find it insulting to have their time wasted by having to kowtow to prayers from a religion to which they do not subscribe? He should take the Eurostar.
Michael Gerard, president, Leicester Secular Society
The Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, writes the First Person column each Saturday in the Leicester Mercury. Here's the one that appears in today's paper.
This is not the time to build a secular state
The Bishop of Leicester considers public faith in a week of mixed fortunes for religion
Public faith has been much in the news this week. The story began with a judge's ruling about Bideford Council. Although he did not forbid the saying of prayers in the council chamber, he ruled it to be unlawful that such prayers should be part of the formal council proceedings. The ruling seems to have triggered an outcry from many quarters. It is mostly regarded as another step on the long journey towards removing any religious acts or rituals from our public life.
Many have seen this judgement as part of a process of marginalising Christianity which has shaped and coloured our national story.
The Queen spoke at Lambeth Palace this week of the important role of the Church of England as creating a space in which faith can be celebrated and shared as part of our national life. She, of course, is aware that prayers are said in both Houses of Parliament before the start of each day's proceedings. And she is aware too, that most of our great national occasions are marked by public acts of worship.
That will certainly be the case on many occasions during this jubilee year, and especially in St Paul's Cathedral during the national celebration of the jubilee in June.
It raises the question, what would a secular culture look like? If there were no public prayers said before any Government proceedings, if there were no great services in our cathedrals, and if there was no monarch to act as head of the Established Church, would our lives be more free and fulfilled? What if the spires and towers of our parish churches were removed from our cityscapes and landscape? What if every village no longer had an ancient iconic building at its heart?
What if the mosques, temples and gurdwaras were removed from Leicester?
It seems that the practice of religion is so fundamental to human beings that it is impossible to eradicate it.
So I hope we might all become more relaxed about this in this country. No-one is forced to worship against their own conscience.
The great majority of people in this country are quietly sympathetic to the Church while not practising their faith in any committed way.
But there is no general desire to see a secular State from which all signs of human believing have been removed.
And here in Leicester I have no doubt at all that when the Queen comes to town in three weeks time, she will be feted by people of all faiths and none. Many of us will wish to join her celebration, giving thanks for her faithfulness and Christian witness, and we shall want to pray both privately and publicly for her immense contribution to our national life over 60 years. This surely is not the time to build a secular state, but rather an opportunity to make those who are secular feel at home in a country which is comfortable with celebrating its heritage of faith.
Another attack on Christianity
The High Court has ruled that councils did not have the power to put acts of worship on the formal agenda.
The case was brought against Bideford Town Council in Devon by the National Secular Society after atheist ex-councillor Clive Bone said he was "embarrassed and disadvantaged" when prayers were said at council meetings.
I am pleased to see that Prayers will not be axed from the start of Parliamentary sessions.
The Speaker John Bercow insisted that laws dating back to 1689 mean any attempt to end prayers in the House of Commons would fail.
His wife Sally Bercow said on Twitter "if people want to say prayers before or after council meetings fair enough, but right that prayers should not be 'official' part of the proceedings".
I am pleased to see that Eric Pickles the Communities Secretary called this ruling "illiberal and intolerant" and pledged to overturn it with legislation by the end of the month.
This is yet another attack on Christianity in this country and a way of trying to silence Christians. It's a disgrace this ruling was made in the first place. Prayers have been part of council meetings for many years and should continue.
Kevin Fletcher, Coalville
This story appears today on the National Secular Society website: Council prayers unlawful rules High Court
The High Court today ruled that "The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a Council is not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue". The judgement follows a Judicial Review initiated by the National Secular Society.
The judgement follows a Judicial Review initiated by the National Secular Society to challenge the practice of prayers as part of the formal business of council meetings in Bideford Town Council (Devon).
The ruling will apply to the formal meetings of all councils in England and Wales, the majority of which are thought to conduct prayers as part of their meetings. It does not, contrary to a recent report, extend more widely to "the role religious worship plays in public places", for example remembrance services, or councilors voluntarily attending them.
In passing judgement, the Head of the Administrative Court, Mr Justice Ouseley, directed: "I do not think the 1972 Act [...] should be interpreted as permitting the religious views of one group of councillors, however sincere or large in number, to exclude, or even to a modest extent, to impose burdens on or even to mark out those who do not share their views and do not wish to participate in their expression of them. They are all equally elected councillors".
Commenting on the judgment, Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society said:
"Acts of worship in council meetings are key to the separation of religion from politics, so we're very pleased with the judgement, and the clear secular message it sends - particularly the statement made about the 1972 Act (quoted in the preceding paragraph).
"We believe that council meetings should be conducted in a manner equally welcoming to all councillors, regardless of their religious beliefs, or indeed, lack of belief.
"The NSS is not seeking to deprive those who wish to pray the opportunity to do so; indeed, we fight to retain freedom of religion and belief. The judgement clearly states that religious freedoms are not hindered, as councillors who wish to do so are free to say prayers before council meetings.
"Our interest in this issue was prompted by a complaint from a Bideford Town Councillor, Clive Bone, who felt uncomfortable at having to sit through prayers, homilies and requests for divine guidance while carrying out his formal duties as an elected councillor. The only alternative to this discomfort was to walk out, unbidden by the mayor, which would look discourteous to those in the public gallery.
"We sought the Judicial Review only after Bideford had rejected compromises made by (now former) Councillor Bone and the NSS for prayers before the meeting, or a period of silence during the meeting. Bideford had also rejected legal advice from the National Association of Local Government and our lawyers that the practice could be unlawful. If Bideford had agreed to cease their practice of (Christian) prayers during the meetings, there would have been no basis for this action. Bideford was indemnified from costs and supported by the Christian Institute. There was no question of prosecuting councillors.
"The judgement echoed an admirably secular passage in the judgment by LJ Laws in McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd (2010), which a number of equality cases have also cited: 'The precepts of any one religion, and belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of another. 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.'"
Prayers have been the cause of tension in a number of local councils. When Portsmouth Council allowed a Muslim Imam to say a prayer, one Christian councillor walked out of the meeting, later saying "I do not believe we are praying to the same god". Meanwhile, councillors in Shropshire called a fellow councillor "disgusting" when he wore headphones during prayers.
Putting the judgment in a wider context, Mr Porteous Wood added: "This judgment is an important victory for everyone who wants a secular society, one that neither advantages nor disadvantages people because of their religion or lack of it. This is particularly important for activities which are part of public life, such as council meetings.
"There is no longer a respectable argument that Britain is a solely Christian nation or even a religious one. An increasing proportion of people are not practising any religion and minority faiths are growing in number and influence. This underlines the need for shared civic spaces to be secular and available to all, believers and non-believers alike, on an equal basis."
The defendant has requested permission to appeal.
Court bans prayers at formal council meetings
The saying of prayers as a ‘formal’ part of local council meetings has been ruled unlawful by the High Court today in an extraordinary judgment.
The judge, Mr Justice Ouseley, said there is no law that gives councils the power to do so.
But critics hit back, saying the ruling also means a council has no power to formally start its meetings with the national anthem.
In December the head of the Equality Commission, Trevor Phillips, said he ‘dropped his coffee’ when he heard the case was being taken to court, calling it “nonsense on stilts”.
Today’s ruling only affects the formal meetings of local government, and does not stop councils from holding prayers outside of that setting if they wish to do so.
And the court rejected claims that the saying of prayers discriminates against, or breaches the human rights of, secularists.
The practice of saying prayers at Bideford Town Council meetings is understood to date back to the days of Queen Elizabeth the First.
The Council has, recently, twice voted in support of continuing with the prayers.
Individual councillors were free to not take part in the prayers if they wished, and the register of attendance was not taken until after the prayers had finished.
Nevertheless, a court case was brought by the National Secular Society and a secularist former councillor, Mr Clive Bone, against Bideford Town Council.
The claimants’ legal case rested on three arguments: that the prayers were discriminatory against atheist councillors, the prayers were a breach of human rights laws, and that the council had no lawful authority to hold prayers as part of its formal meetings.
The judge rejected the first two arguments, but ruled: “The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a Council is not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue.”
The Act does allow councils to do anything that “facilitates, or is conducive or is incidental” to a council’s functions, but Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that the saying of prayers at formal meetings does not fall within that provision.
If councillors are not compelled to pray, the judge reasoned, then prayers cannot be an essential part of a council’s functions and therefore should not be part of the formal council meeting.
The decision was criticised by The Christian Institute – a national charity that defends religious liberty and underwrote Bideford Council’s legal costs.
Institute spokesman Simon Calvert said: “We welcome the finding that the saying of prayers isn’t discriminatory, or a breach of equality laws, or human rights laws.
“But it is extraordinary to rule that councils have no lawful authority to choose, if they so wish, to start their formal meetings with prayers. That is simply wrong.
“The logic of the ruling is that councils would also be going beyond the law if they took a vote and decided to start each formal council meeting with the national anthem.
“There is no way that Parliament, when it passed the Local Government Act 40 years ago, intended it to be used to outlaw prayers.
“This case was brought by a campaign group that wants to drive Christianity out of public life, and the High Court has today given them great encouragement to take matters further.
“It is high time Parliament put a stop to this assault upon our national heritage. What’s next? Will prayers at the cenotaph end up in court?
“What about local councils that wish to formally mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee as part of their official meeting? Is that now unlawful too?”
