WORLD FAITHS ADVISORY GROUP AT LEICESTER UNIVERSITY, FEBRUARY 2013

A meeting of the World Faiths Advisory Group (WFAG) at the University of Leicester's Chaplaincy Centre (The Gatehouse, University Road) this lunchtime.

Present today are Rev Canon Dr Stephen Forster (Coordinating Chaplain), Ian Snaith (Chair, WFAG), Chris Sharp (Equalities Adviser to the University of Leicester) and Resham Singh Sandhu (Chair of the Sikh Cultural and Welfare Society, Vice Chair of Leicestershire Interfaith Forum and past-Chair of Leicester Council of Faiths).

With Chris present at today's meeting, it makes sense to talk about the World Faiths Advisory Group's relation to the University's management of equality issues. Under the terms of the Public Sector Equality Duty, the University of Leicester - like all public bodies - has to apply itself to three aims of the general duty:

• To eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. By removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics.
• To advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. By taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people.
• To foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. By encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.

 

We discuss the possibility of establishing a Religion or Belief Forum, which would function alongside hose already operating at the university in relation to other Protected Characteristics as enumerated in the Equality Act 2010. If such a forum existed, it would free WFAG from having to be involved in governance issues and allow this group to make progress on issues that fall within its specific remit. I am able to speak to the meeting in support of this idea. It's been my experience that the Protected Characteristic of Religion or Belief is taken more seriously an treated with more respect when it is see in context with the other Protected Characteristics, rather than trying to stand alone outside the general scheme of things or to make special pleading on grounds of exceptionalism.
 

 

 

 

IMPACT OF CLOSURE OF CHILDREN'S CONGENITAL HEART UNIT, GLENFIELD HOSPITAL

This afternoon I’m at the headquarters of Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust. I’ve been asked to attend a briefing with Christina Marriott, Manager of the Integrated Equalities Unit at Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, on potential impacts of the closure of the Children's Congenital Heart Unit at Glenfield Hospital. No such decision has been made yet and consultations on the impacts of closure have to be discussed before the decision can be taken.

Christian is having meetings with representatives from organisations standing for each of the relevant Protected Characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010, asking for their responses and collating their contributions.

This consultation is not on the subject of whether or not the Children's Congenital Heart Unit at Glenfield Hospital should be closed or should remain open. A long-running consultation on that topic has been held and is now closed. That decision will be made at national level and it is not possible now for us to make any contribution to the process.

What is going on now is the gathering of information about potential impacts of closing the unit at Glenfield - from our perspective, if this is done, how will it affect communities of religion or belief in the city (and in the county and Rutland)?

There are four options on the table and the final decision will favour one of them. In Option A, Glenfield stays open. In the other three options, Glenfield is closed and the nearest site for treatment is Birmingham Children's Hospital. Nothing more can be done at this stage to influence the eventual decision. Christina is very interested in seeing what we have to say in terms of foreseeable impacts of the closure - and, just as importantly, ways of mitigating those impacts.

The response from Leicester Council of Faiths to this part of the consultation process is shown below. This was circulated around our Board of Directors and their comments solicited before it was submitted.

"Safe and Sustainable – A New Vision for Children’s Congenital Heart Services"

Response from Leicester Council of Faiths, drafted following a meeting with Christina Marriott, Manager of the Integrated Equality Service at Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust HQ, Lakeside House, 4 Smith Way, Grove Park, Enderby, Leics LE19 1SX, Monday 28 May 2012.

This response has been made as promptly as possible, but it should be noted that it is still a provisional one. There is a clear need to keep talking and keep thinking about the possible impacts of rationalising Children’s Congenital Heart Services nationally. If, as a result of decisions made at national level, Glenfield Hospital does not retain its surgical unit, then deeper consultation will be required, perhaps including direct engagement with representatives of different communities of Religion or Belief in the city, county and Rutland.

We appreciate the fact that the Joint Committee of the Primary Care Trust (JCPCT) is showing due regard to the groups it serves in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. We are aware that the conversation with Leicester Council of Faiths is part of a wider ongoing process of consultation, in which JCPCT is talking with other organisations representing people and groups identifying with Protected Characteristics as enumerated in the Equality Act 2010. We know that that these groups include, for example: Leicester Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Centre; Leicestershire Centre for Integrated Living (LCIL); and The Race Equality Centre (TREC). In the context of this knowledge, we hope that nothing in this response will come across as special pleading on behalf of those people and groups who identify with the Protected Characteristic of Religion or Belief. We welcome and support the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders and expertise in the consultation.

JCPCT has to demonstrate awareness of possible or likely impacts on families, groups and / or communities who identify with the Protected Characteristic of Religion or Belief – and to show that proportionate actions that may be taken in mitigation of those impacts have been discussed, recorded and forwarded to those involved in deciding the outcome of this review.

Given the nature of the Protected Characteristics enumerated in the Equality Act 2010, we are aware that many of them overlap, meaning that individuals, families and communities identifying with any Religion or Belief will most likely also identify with one or more of the other Protected Characteristics (i.e. age, disability, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, sex, sexual orientation, transgender). In keeping with the current understanding of equality, it is clear that communities, families and individuals no longer align themselves with just one characteristic, but tend more to see themselves as bundles of characteristics. Sometimes these bundles work in harmony with each other within the same community, family or individual, at other times they may compete with each other. At times, one of these Protected Characteristics may come to the fore and be of greater importance, or it may fade into the background and be superseded in importance by others. For example, it may be the case that sometimes individuals, families or groups who identify with the Protected Characteristic of Religion or Belief may speak out more strongly on an issue related to age or disability.

Anyone who identifies with any particular Religion or Belief wants to obtain the same level of service in hospital as any other person: adaptable, competent, sensitive and well-trained staff at all levels; clean and well-kept wards, free from risk of infection; speedy responses by staff members and by NHS institutions to changing needs and situations; the willingness and ability to treat patients, family and visitors as whole people.

People of Religion or Belief are, in the end, people after all. They do not necessarily bring special problems associated with Religion or Belief with them. However, there are particular needs associated with the Protected Characteristic of Religion or Belief, which we hope can be clarified here.

One issue that will surely be raised by all respondents is increased travel time between a unit in Birmingham and home in Leicester, Leicestershire or Rutland. Given that the patient is a child, it’s normal to have an adult family member with the patient at all times, if possible. Family members tend to work in shifts by the patient’s bedside (assuming that a sufficient number of family members are available to do this). This will normally bring about considerable disruption to the family’s routine – which is of special significance if that routine involves playing an active part in the community life of their place of worship. We would want to be assured of decent facilities for parents and/or other family members  to sleep when staying with the patient, and not be subjected to the ordeal of travelling longer distances (especially if they have to drive).

It’s fairly easy to come up with a wish-list that would appear to cover the bases in terms of the Protected Characteristic of Religion or Belief (e.g. family and visitors have access to a well-maintained prayer room or quiet room; appropriate washing facilities for ritual ablutions; a range of sacred scriptures and other appropriate texts in a variety of languages; a display of artifacts and/or symbols for devotional use; food and drink that fits in with Halal, Kosher and vegetarian and vegan dietary regimes). Such a list is important, of course – but in this day and age, these things may be said to be the minimum that would be expected under any circumstances. In relation to these requirements, we would be concerned that, if the unit at Glenfield were to be closed, one impact would be a squeeze on existing facilities, an increase in demand, that could not be coped with comfortably. To mitigate this impact, there would need to be, at the very least, an expansion of such facilities existing at Birmingham Children’s Hospital, in close proximity to the site of Congenital Heart Services.

Over and above all this, however, there is another kind or level of response from the perspective of the Protected characteristic of Religion or Belief, a more nuanced and subtle one, which we would like to see taken into account.

The city of Leicester is known for its distinctive religious profile. If the surgical unit at Glenfield Hospital is to close as a result of this national review, then the religious profile of potential service users from Leicester has to be taken into account for effective functioning of the site to which Leicester-based patients will be referred.

In terms of this religious profile, can we be sure that appropriate training has been or will be given to staff on those other sites, that suitable resources have been or will be made available (to service users and staff), that a relevant multi-faith chaplaincy service is currently or will be accessible (to all who may need it)?

What is the religious infrastructure locally? Even if another city is known for diversity in its own right (e.g. Birmingham) it should not be assumed that this will match up with the sort of diversity found in Leicester. While it is important to be able to demonstrate that Religion or Belief has been taken as seriously as the other Protected Characteristics, it is also important to be able to show that the issue of diversity has been considered to the same degree. There is no generic, universal, “one size fits all” solution to issues that arise in relation to Religion or Belief. There will be variation, perhaps tension (if not actual conflict) between the needs or wishes of different communities of Religion or Belief. There may be competing demands on resources, space or funding that means if one thing is done, another cannot. This may be the case not only between distinct communities, but also within those communities themselves.  When it comes down to it, it may be said that no two families who identify with a particular Religion or Belief may be expected to respond in the same way.

In the midst of all this discussion of equality and diversity, care should be taken not to make it look as though nominal affiliation to the Church of England is “normal”, even for families with no particular religious affiliation.

Issues related to end of life care assume the greatest importance for families who identify with a particular Religion or Belief. Under such circumstances, the stakes are obviously raised. A religious person will probably want to pray more, preferably at their chosen place of worship, for the recovery and well-being of the child. If they are unable to attend their normal religious services or observances, this will put an extra strain on family members.

This potential impact would be mitigated if relevant staff know the location of places of worship (with proper awareness of differences between denominations, sects, etc.). This kind of knowledge can be captured in a multi-lingual resource, but should also be part of the family and patient’s initial care plan. This sort of conversation should be triggered when a child is scheduled for surgery. It would mitigate all kinds of impacts to be able to “front-load” the service in this way, rather than end up trying to take remedial action.

This response submitted by George M Ballentyne, Equality & Diversity Officer, Leicester Council of Faiths, 28 May 2012

SETTING RELIGION OR BELIEF EQUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE

At The Centre, Alfred Place, this evening for a public meeting organised by The Race Equality Centre (TREC): "Setting Religion or Belief Equality Objectives for Leicestershire Constabulary". The meeting is led by Darren Goddard, one of Leicestershire Constabulary's Diversity Officers (on the right in the photo above).

Is Leicestershire Constabulary able to deliver equality for people of different religions or beliefs? Are all the people of Leicestershire:

• Equally safe from violence?
• Equally safe from burglary?
• Equally stopped by the police?
• Equally recruited by the police?
• Equally treated by the police?

The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on Leicestershire Constabulary to plan to be able to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination between people from different religions or beliefs,
• advance equality of opportunity for all religions or beliefs,
• and foster good relations between people from different religions or beliefs

The plans that the Police publish should be based on consultation with those communities that could be unfairly treated. This public meeting has been organised to provide an opportunity to meet police representatives and propose equality priorities that the police should implement to meet their Equality Duty. The meeting is open to representatives and practitioners from all communities or organisations of religion or belief and to everyone with an interest in addressing inequality on the grounds of religion or belief.

At the start of the meeting, we're shown a YouTube clip, Leicestershire Police: Taking a Look Back at 2011 (which I saw previously at the Chief and Chair meeting on Thursday 12 January 2012). Darren builds on themes in this presentation, concentrating on relations between Leicestershire Constabulary and faith communities, places of worship, community centres - as well as considering how individuals who identify with particular communities of religion or belief are treated if they're detained in police custody.

We discuss the possible impacts of new arrangements for an elected Police and Crime Commissioner, coming later this year. There's genuine concern and anxiety (verging on alarm) at this development among many in the room. Some of those here are learning of this for the first time and express anxiety about how much candidates for the post might know about their communities. It sounds like a good idea for faith communities to organise a hustings!

There's also concern that Leicestershire Constabulary's Equality Objectives for Religion or Belief should be determined by such a small group as is gathered here this evening. There are a dozen attendees, among us Bahá'ís, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and a couple with no particular religious identity (broadly speaking). Well, that illustrates the importance of engagement and participation! At least one other meeting of a similar nature is to take place in Loughborough and recommendations can be made electronically for a while yet. But the invitation to participate has been extended, even if it's been at fairly short notice. You can lead a horse to water ...

 We're each given a booklet showing Leicestershire Constabulary's employment statistics 2008-2011, which breaks down figures in terms of Protected Characteristics, including Religion or Belief. Here's that part of the booklet:

Within the Constabulary's HR system there are 37 different religions and faiths that staff have self identified. For the purpose of this publication we have collapsed the different denominations in the 20 main headings.

There is an active association of Muslim Police, Christian Police Association and Sikh Police Association within the organisation which receives organisational funding and support. The faith based support networks are involved in a number of key organisational meetings and provide support to all staff on a range of faith based issues. In addition the networks actively make links with different faith groups in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

There is also a multi-faith and contemplation room which is supported by the Leicester Council of Faiths within the Headquarters complex. The room which is open to all officers, staff and visitors has washing facilities and separate storage facilities for each faith to store religious texts and other items.

The figures show that for those police officers who have chosen to record their religion or belief 92% have identified as following a Christian based faith, followed by 1.7% identifying as Atheist or Sikh and 1.6% as Hindu or Muslim.

For those police staff who have recorded their religion or belief 85% identified as following a Christian based faith, whilst 5.6% are Hindu, 2.3% Sikh and 2.1% Muslim.

76% of those Special Constables who chose to record the religion or belief identified as following a Christian based faith, 14% Hindu, 3.5% Muslim and 2.1% Sikh.

Police officers

• Agnostic 16
• Atheist 28
• Buddhist 2
• Christian 1,479
• Hindu 25
• Jehovah's Witness 0
• Judaism 1
• Muslim 25
• Sikh 28
• Other 1
• Non-recorded 642

Police staff

• Agnostic 16
• Atheist 14
• Buddhist 0
• Christian 760
• Hindu 50
• Jehovah's Witness 3
• Judaism 1
• Muslim 19
• Sikh 20
• Other 4
• Non-recorded 613

Special Constables

• Agnostic 2
• Atheist 2
• Buddhist 0
• Christian 108
• Hindu 20
• Jehovah's Witness 0
• Judaism 0
• Muslim 5
• Sikh 3
• Other 1
• Non-recorded 103

REDP CORE REFERENCE GROUP MEETING

At Leicestershire Centre for Integrated Living this afternoon, for a meeting of the Core Reference Group of the Regional Equality and Diversity Partnership. I've been able to zoom back here in time for the meeting from a morning delivering training on the Equality Act 2010 at South Derbyshire CVS's Staff Development Day in Hartshorne (or rather, Chino did the zooming, I just rode shotgun).

Attending today are representives of eight VCS organisations, all of them members of REDP's Core Reference Group:

• Derby & Derbyshire Race Equality Commission
• East Midlands Army Cadet Forces
• Leicester Council of Faiths
• Leicester LGBT Centre
• Leicestershire Centre for Integrated Living
• Lincolnshire Association for People with Disabilities
• One East Midlands
• The Race Equality Centre

In a relatively short and focused meeting, we debrief and reflect on recent events hosted by REDP:

• Human Rights & Equality regional event, Derby, Thursday 22 March 2012
• Choice Unlimited, Leicester Tigers, Thursday 5 April 2012
• Training for Girls Friendly Society, Skegness, Wednesday 11 April 2012
• Equality Act 2010 training for  South Derbyshire CVS, Tuesday 17 April 2012

EQUALITY ACT TRAINING FOR SOUTH DERBYSHIRE CVS

Chino Cabon delivers

At Goseley Community Centre, Hartshorne, Derbyshire, this morning, delivering training for the Regional Equality and Diversity Partnership (REDP).

I'm here with Chino Cabon, from The Race Equality Centre (TREC), one of REDP's four Core Partners. We're presenting on the Equality Act 2010 at a staff development day for South Derbyshire CVS. There are 27 attendees, a mix of paid staff and volunteers.

Chino (in the orange shirt, photo above) takes the first session, giving an hour-and-a-half long overview of the Equality Act: its history (including the decades-long back story of equality legislation in this country); innovations and extensions (what's new and what it retains from previous legislation); what's lawful and what's unlawful under its provisions; who it protects and who's responsible for its enforcement.

I do something half that length focusing on disabled people and the Equality Act. Not my specialist area, that's true, but it's part of the deal at REDP that we're able to double up for each other and cover all the Protected Characteristics.

Chino's presentations are always encyclopaedic and rooted firmly in the texts. Mine tend to be a bit looser. Variety is the spice of life! I use five scenarios, affecting or involving disabled people, of the kind that those here may have experienced in their own lives, or of the type which may have been brought to them for advice or guidance. The scenarios are taken from Disability LIB's handy Equality Act Toolkit.

As soon as my session is finished, we dash off back to Leicester, so I can get to the meeting of REDP's Core Reference Group at Leicestershire Centre for Integrated Living. We're leaving just as lunch starts here; we'll probably arrive just as lunch ends there!

NHS EQUALITY DELIVERY SERVICE GRADING GROUP

At the Peepul Centre today, for the Equality Delivery System (EDS) Grading Group, sponsored by the Integrated Equalities Service for Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust and Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland PCTs, working in partnership with University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust and East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

This event is being held to allow participants to review the information NHS organisations have published and evidenced as part of their EDS self-assessment work and decide whether the proposed grade is appropriate.

The Equality Delivery System (EDS) is a new structured method designed by the NHS to assist its organisations in meeting the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010, covering all nine protected characteristics. In order to get an accurate and comprehensive perspective NHS organisations using the EDS are encouraged to work with staff-side groups, community organisations and local interest groups in tackling inequalities in their areas. The EDS is broken down into four structured goals over:

• Better health outcomes for all
• Improved patient access and experience
• Empowered, engaged and well-supported staff
• Inclusive leadership at all levels

This has been planned and promoted as a two-day event: day one looking at the first two goals with the focus on patient services and experiences; day two looking at the last two goals with a focus on employment, staff support and the organisation’s leadership. Each day is scheduled to run from 1200-2015.

But it doesn't quite work out tha way. Attendees voice concerns about the kind of information evidenced (and that which has not been evidenced) and their competence to comment on what's been put before them. There's recognition of conflation between what's interesting and useful to the organisation and what's interesting and useful to service users and the kind of organisations represented here today. So during an impromptu break, the organisers rejig the whole event, cancelling tomorrow's session, bringing forward the close of today's session to 1700 and setting us the collective task of spending the next few hours discussing, devising and deciding upon the kind of evidence that would work for all of us.

I say good on them, for listening to what attendees were saying today and responding to it as a matter of urgency. I haven't seen that done very often at this kind of event. As I said to Christina Marriot, Manager of the Integrated Equalities Service, if they (and particularly she) don't get a gold star on the evaluation forms today for thinking on their feet, then there's no justice in the room!

"ANTI-GAY" BOOK PUTS GOVE AT CENTRE OF FAITH SCHOOL TEACHING ROW

This article appears on the website of the Guardian today:

"Anti-gay" book puts Gove at centre of faith school teaching row

Education secretary says Equality Act does not extend to school curriculum – allowing faith schools to use homophobic material

By Jamie Doward

Michael Gove, the education secretary, is at the centre of an escalating row over how faith schools discuss homosexuality in sex education classes.

The TUC has accused Gove of failing in his legal duties by insisting that equality laws, which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, do not extend to the school curriculum.

The TUC complains that the current situation sends mixed signals to the playground, because schools are legally obliged to condemn discrimination on sexual-orientation grounds but free to use religious materials that equality campaigners claim is homophobic.

Brendan Barber, the TUC's general secretary, wrote to Gove in December expressing alarm that a booklet containing "homophobic material" had been distributed by a US preacher after talks to pupils at Roman Catholic schools across the Lancashire region in 2010.

The booklet, "Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be", discusses a boy dealing with "homosexual attractions" which it suggested may "stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse".

The booklet, which claims that "scientifically speaking, safe sex is a joke", explains that "the homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God's natural purpose for sex – babies and bonding."

Referring to the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination against individuals, Barber said: "Schools now have a legal duty to challenge all forms of prejudice. Such literature undermines this completely."

But Gove insists: "The education provisions of the Equality Act 2010which prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their protected characteristics (including their sexual orientation) do not extend to the content of the curriculum. Any materials used in sex and relationship education lessons, therefore, will not be subject to the discrimination provisions of the act."

Gove's response has triggered anger from the TUC. "Having written to the education secretary to express our worry about the distribution of homophobic literature in faith schools, his lack of concern is very alarming," Barber said.

A DfE spokesman insisted: "Any school engaging in the promotion of homophobic material would be acting unlawfully." But the row highlights a grey area over the teaching of sex education. A review intended to provide new guidelines on what was appropriate for schools to teach was kicked into the long grass when the last election was called.

"It would certainly be helpful if there was clarity as to what is appropriate for young people of all ages," said Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall. "The water could no longer be muddied by people pushing age-inappropriate sex material on the one hand and fundamentalist anti-gay religious materials on the other."

The row comes at the end of an extraordinary week in which the role of religion in society has come under acute scrutiny.

The chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, said religious rules should be left "at the door of the temple" and give way to the "public law" laid down by parliament. Phillips said: "Once you start to provide public services that have to be run under public rules – for example, child protection – then it has to go with public law." Phillips spoke out after Baroness Warsi, the Tory minister, warned Britain was under threat from a rising tide of "militant secularisation".

Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, warned that Christianity was being marginalised. Days earlier, the high court ruled that councils had no statutory power to hold prayers in meetings, while the Christian owners of a bed-and-breakfast lost an appeal against a ruling that their policy of restricting double rooms to married couples discriminated against a gay couple.

Concerns that faith matters are being marginalised at school has prompted the creation of a new coalition of faith groups and politicians. The Religious Education Council of England and Wales is to back the creation of an all-party parliamentary group that will focus on protecting religious education in schools and stressing its value to young people.

CHRISTIAN HOTEL OWNERS LOSE APPEAL AGAINST DISCRIMINATION RULING

This story appears today on the website of the British Humanist Association:

Christian hotel owners lose appeal against discrimination ruling

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has welcomed today’s Court of Appeal judgement upholding the ruling that Christian hotel owners Peter and Hazel Bull unlawfully discriminated on grounds of sexual orientation against Martyn Hall and Steve Preddy in refusing them a double room.

In the appeal, the judges acknowledged that all sides have strongly held beliefs, but ruled that the previous ruling was correct in concluding that the Bulls had breached the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulations) 2007 (now Equality Act 2010). As the hotel is not a religious organisation but a business, it is not entitled to exemption from these laws.

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented, ‘Although the right to your religious or non-religious beliefs is absolute, it is legitimate for the right to act on those beliefs to be restrained so that the rights of others are not violated. Our equality law protects religious people on those grounds in exactly the same way that it protects gay people – but no more than that.

‘In this particular case, the court has once again struck the correct balance between the right to freedom of religion and the right not to be discriminated against and we welcome it. The narrative whipped up by political Christian groups around cases such as this, that Christians are being marginalised and their beliefs ignored, is a false and misleading narrative. Instead, what we are seeing time and again is the courts upholding the rights of people not to be discriminated against on the arbitrary convictions of someone who does not wish to treat them equally – and that is how it should be in a decent society.’

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

Read the ruling in full here.

STANDING UP FOR THE ENGLISH

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Standing up for the English

One of the reasons why the English Defence League (EDL) chose to march again in Leicester is the fact that the English community in the city have been neglected for decades by both the local council, the wider establishment and media.

As members of the English Community Group (Leicester), the first of its kind within England, while we agree that the EDL should have the right to march and express its views, we neither support the EDL or share in its "British" identity and multicultural sentiments.

Along with millions of Englishmen and women we feel that we as a community have become marginalised and ignored by the liberal establishment who recognise every other racial and ethnic group, yet deny the English those same rights, benefits and privileges.

This is what helps create a ghettoised English resentment which feels that it can only voice its anger through street protests.

Our group has tried to meet Sir Peter Soulsby, City Mayor of Leicester, for months yet he has ignored us. Yet in the run-up to the EDL march he has met with other community groups which are, like ourselves, ethnic-specific.

Under current legislation the English are recognised as being members of a racial nation known as the English and that the indigenous English are a protected racial group in law.

The liberal establishment fails to recognise the English as a legitimate community and they are thus being effectively administratively "ethnically cleansed".

Sir Peter Soulsby's conduct in ignoring our community group has resulted in our group serving his office with an Equality Discrimination Questionnaire under the 2010 Equality Act. This means the City Mayor is now under legal notice to explain his conduct and to seek to recognise and work with the English community of Leicester.Failure to do so may result in legal action being taken against the office of City Mayor.

The English have a legal identity and are not a "mongrel nation", a claim levelled against us by the liberal establishment and the multi-cult extremists who wish to deny us our identity, culture and heritage.

Our mission is to ensure that the English within Leicester begin to enjoy the rights, benefits and privileges that they are entitled to enjoy under the Equality Act.

Clive Potter, chairman, English Community Group (Leicester)

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST HATE CRIME

At Phoenix Square Film and Digital Media Centre this morning, where International Day Against Hate Crime is being marked with an event organised jointly between Leicestershire Police's Stamp It Out campaign and Citizens' Eye Community News Agency.

Here's some information about hate crime, from the Stamp It Out! flyer:

The risk of being attacked or abused on the street, at work or in their own home just because of who they are remains an everyday reality for many people.
Hate Incidents and crimes happen because of hostility, prejudice or hatred of another person because of their actual or perceived disability, gender identity (transgender), race, religion or belief or sexual orientation
No two hate incidents are the same but may include the following:

• verbal abuse and name calling
• physical attack
• graffiti or other deliberate damage to property
• written or recorded threats

These incidents don't just affect the lives of those involved but affect their friends, their families and every part of the local community.
If hate incidents are not reported, then the bullies, bigots and thugs will feel their behaviour is totally acceptable and they they can continue to abuse people whenever they feel like it.
Stamp It Out! is a community-led partnership bringing together different groups and organisations all committed to challenging, tackling and stamping out hate within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

Assistant Mayor Councillor Manjula Sood, Chair of Leicester Council of Faiths, is among a small number of speakers at the plenary session in Screen 1, the largest of Phoenix Square's three projection spaces. Here we also hear from Simon Cole (Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police), Justin Hammond (Stamp It Out), John Coster and Hollie Sturgess (Citizens' Eye Community News Agency) and Dr Loretta Trickett (Nottingham Centre for the Study of Reduction of Hate Crimes, Bias and Prejudice at Nottingham Trent University). We also watch an amazing video: No Arms No Legs No Worries.

Leicester Council of Faiths is exhibiting in the marketplace in Phoenix Square's reception area and cafe bar. We've done this sort of event here many a time, but this is probably the busiest I've seen it. Many of the displays focus on specific groups who are considered the most common victims of hate crime, whether it's racially or religiously motivated, homophobic, against disabled or older people or women. From the Council of Faiths perspective, I'm especially interested to meet one Jonny Basger, representing Community Security Trust (CST) a national organisation involved in protecting the Jewish community from all forms of antisemitic incidents. I pick up a wealth of printed material from the CST display. I'm particularly impressed by their use of QR codes and smartphone apps.

I've also taking apart today with an eye to activities with the Regional Equality and Diversity Partnership (REDP). REDP is planning a regional conference on hate crime in the first half of 2012. I collect as much relevant information as I can and speak to a few exhibitors and attendees about their interest and potential involvement in this forthcoming event. We've got a selection of REDP's leaflets about the Protected Characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010 on our display today.

We sign up today to Leicestershire Police's Neighbourhood Link Police Community Messaging System, to receive news, updates and events information. thanks to Steve Hastings, Communications & Engagement Co-ordinator, for signing me up as "single point of contact" for the Council of Faiths, quickly and painlessly. We both noted, during the signup process, that there's no faith-related category for this service (e.g. in terms of events, incidents or premises. Steve said he'd bring that to the attention of his superiors and see what could be done.

The event is still going on at 1330, when I have to leave in order to get to the Towers for a meeting with Abida Hussain (Equality & Human Rights Officer for the Integrated Equality Service, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust). John Coster offers to tidy up our exhibition, so I can collect it later in the afternoon.

EQUALITY ACT 2010: ITS IMPACT ON SCHOOLS

Going through the papers for the last meeting of SACRE, I come upon this handout on the Equality Act 2010 and its impact on schools. I thought it would be interesting to post it on the blog in its own right, rather than risk it being buried in a report on the last SACRE meeting.

I also thought that this would make a good primer for the Equality Act 201o, for any readers who haven’t got the drop on it for themselves yet. The Act is such an important recurring feature of this blog and having a refresher every so often can’t do any harm.

What is the Equality Act 2010?

The Equality Act 2010 is a new law which protects people from discrimination. It replaces all previous, separate equality laws including the Disability Discrimination Act, Race Relations Act and many others.

Why change?

Having one law on Equality helps people to better understand their and other people’s rights and how they should expect to be treated.

The Equality Act 2010

The main provisions of the Equality Act 2010 came into force in October 2010.

The Act details the general duties and sets out a public sector Single Equality Duty due to be implemented in April 2011. The Equality Act 2010 extends protection to all of the following equality areas, now known as “Protected Characteristics”:

• Age
• Disability
• Gender reassignment
• Marriage and civil partnership
• Pregnancy and maternity
• Race
• Religion or belief
• Sexual orientation
• Sex (previously referred to as Gender)

General duties of the Equality Act

Due regard must be given to the need to:

Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation;

Advance equality of opportunity between different groups; and

Foster good relations between different groups.

What will this mean for schools?

The main change for schools is the addition of Religion or Belief and Sexual Orientation and (to a lesser degree) pregnancy and maternity, gender identity and age. When the Specific duties (autumn 2011 for schools) schools will have to set equality objectives detailing what they will do to address the persistent causes of inequality. Schools will be required to demonstrate:

• Proactive approaches in identifying, addressing and eliminating discrimination;
• Promoting equality of opportunity and good relations between people from different equality groups are being sought.

Benefits

A single equality scheme produced with the involvement of the whole school community can support the school to identify and address barriers by equality characteristics giving the school the opportunity to:

• Demonstrate that the school has a good understanding of how discrimination can affect outcomes for different groups and that it has a proactive approach to addressing this;
• Engage meaningfully with the school community therein enabling a better understanding of the barriers that exist and how to address these;
• Enhance the everyday experience of the school community as parents, pupils and staff feel that they are able to contribute to and inform school policy and decision making and as a result feel more confident and foster a higher degree of trust with the leadership within the school
• Raise attainment and aspirations of pupils so that they feel more confident about their own identities and that of others, understanding and valuing difference and recognising  the benefits to society, safe in the knowledge that the school is dedicated to eradicating discrimination and has a clear plan for doing so;
• Be regarded by the wider community as a school which is clearly committed to embracing diversity and promoting equality.

Faiths

In Leicester there are approximately 240 faith groups across 14 different faiths. There are 123 places of Christian worship, 29 mosques, 23 Hindu temples, 10 Sikh Gurdwara, 2 Jewish synagogues and 1 Jain temple. Over recent years the Muslim population has significantly increased. It is estimated that about 80% to 90% of Muslim pupils attend madrassas after school.

Community cohesion

Leicester has a reputation for welcoming and celebrating diversity

The residents of Leicester recognise that the city is both multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-faith

The major location of cross-cultural mixing in Leicester is local shops, followed by places of work

“Promoting Equality is the whole school’s responsibility”

• Governors
• Head teachers
• Teaching staff
• Non-teaching staff
• Parents
• Pupils
• Local community members 

Schools action

Schools will be asked how they capture the views and perceptions of the school community. They will be advised to list all school-related events and meetings (e.g. sports days, celebrations like Christmas or Diwali or Eid, governors’ meetings, parents’ evenings, after school activities). By supporting schools you will offer the opportunity to support schools in fulfilling their statutory duty regarding religion and belief.

AWAY DAY WITH NOTTINGHAM INTER FAITH COUNCIL

I'm facilitating an "away day" for members of Nottingham Inter Faith Council. Our host for this occasion is their Treasurer, Richard, whose lovely big garden is the setting for the photo of today's attendees.

Being the sort of meeting that it is, it's no surprise that those attending are from a variety of backgrounds and traditions - but I do like to list these all the same: Bahá'í, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhist, Christian (Anglicans and Roman Catholics), Jewish, Muslim, Quaker, Sikh.

Patricia Stoat, Chair of Nottingham Inter Faith Council (and who represents them on the Core Reference Group of the Regional Equality and Diversity Partnership) poses three questions at the start of the meeting which we return to during the plenary sessions and which form the topics for our buzz groups:

• "Where is the next generation?"
• "What resources might be available to carry on our work in the future?"
• "What is inter faith activity for?"

Of course, it would be improper to go into detail about our discussions here today. Suffice to say, we consider inter faith activity, dialogue and work in the context of the changing landscape of relations with civil authorities and service providers, public and private funders, legislation such as the Equality Act 2010 and the proposed Bill of Rights.

I'm grateful to my friends and colleagues in Nottingham Inter Faith Council for inviting me to join them for the day, to help facilitate their discussions. I hope we'll find reasons to collaborate again.

REDP briefing no. 5

At Leicestershire Centre for Integrated Living (LCIL) this morning, where I'm helping present a briefing on the work of the Regional Equality and Diversity Partnership (REDP). This is the fifth in a series of six meetings held over the past few weeks. The others have been held in Derby (Wed 20 July), Wellingborough (27 July), Nottingham (28 July), Oakham (Wed 03 Aug) and one more to be held in Grantham. All in all, there are eight organisations represented here today:

• Disability Nottinghamshire
• Genesis / LAMP Direct
• Good Thinking
• Human Rights and Equalities Charnwood
• Leicester Council of Faiths
• Leicester Deaf Action Group
• Leicestershire Centre for Integrated Living
• Loughborough Women's Aid
• The Race Equality Centre

Up till now the briefings have been conducted by Chino Cabon, Policy Officer at  The Race Equality Centre (TREC) and Kelly Jussab, Project Officer at REDP. Kelly has a family obligation today and has asked me to deputise for her.

Each of these meetings has been hosted by a member of REDP's Core Reference Group from that locality. Today's host is Leicester Deaf Action Group (with assistance from two members of Signing Network). Oas from LDAG opens the meeting, giving us a historical overview and an outline of the future prospects of their user-led organisation.

I give a beginners' guide to REDP, Chino speaks about the Equality Act 2010 (concentrating on the terminology used in the Act and its relationship with previous anti-discrimination legislation) then I'm back up front to present on the Localism Bill and Big Society.

The whole thing takes about three hours (including lunch) and I'm glad to say we get some positive evaluations from the attendees.

RED TAPE CHALLENGE: EQUALITY ACT 2010

The Coalition has set up a website called Red Tape Challenge. This has become quite controversial for a number of reasons, that I probably don't need to go into here. The Coalition has put the Equality Act 2010 on this website, asking for comments on whether the Act should be retained in full, amended in part or scrapped altogether.

The seven paragraphs immediately below are copied directly from the Red Tape Challenge website, explaining its purpose. Following that, you'll see the response by Leicester Council of Faiths to the consultation on the Equality Act 2010 as part of the Red Tape Challenge.

Good regulation is a good thing. It protects consumers, employees and the environment, it helps build a more fair society and can even save lives. But over the years, regulations – and the inspections and bureaucracy that go with them – have piled up and up. This has hurt business, doing real damage to our economy. And it’s done harm to our society too. When people are confronted by a raft of regulations whenever they try to volunteer or play a bigger part in their neighbourhood, they begin to think they shouldn’t bother.

If we want to reverse this trend and encourage greater responsibility in our society, then we have got to trust people and give them more freedom to do the right thing. So this government has set a clear aim: to leave office having reduced the overall burden of regulation. With more than 21,000 regulations active in the UK today, this won’t be an easy task – but we’re determined to cut red tape.

To do that, we need your help. You have to deal with these rules day-in, day-out. This website is for you to tell us which regulations are working and which are not; what should be scrapped, what should be saved and what should be simplified.

Every few weeks we’re publishing the regulations affecting one specific sector or industry – from retail to hospitality to construction. And throughout the process we’re publishing the general regulations that cut across all sectors – from rules on equality to those on employment. All these regulations will be open for your comments. So if you own a shop, if you’re running a small business, if you’re a volunteer who is fed up with pointless or outdated rules – get online and tell us.

Once you’ve had your say, Ministers will have three months to work out which regulations they want to keep and why. But here’s the most important bit – the default presumption will be that burdensome regulations will go. If Ministers want to keep them, they have to make a very good case for them to stay.

So get involved. If you’ve been frustrated by red tape for years, tell us about it. Together we can fight back – and free up business and society from the burden of excessive regulation.

This site is designed to promote open discussion of ways in which the aims of existing regulation can be fulfilled in the least burdensome way possible. The presence of a particular regulation or law on this website should not be read as implying any intention on the part of the Government to remove that regulation or law from the statute book. The purpose of this exercise is to open government up to the public.

***

Leicester Council of Faiths supports fully the retention of the Equality Act 2010 in its entirety. We are firmly opposed to the removal or reduction of any of its provisions. Indeed, the act has already been weakened needlessly by (for example) the failure to implement the Socio-Economic Duty and the provision for Dual Discrimination.

The Equality Act 2010 updates, replaces and unifies earlier legislation, built up over the last 40 years and more. If the Act were to be scrapped, what legislation would remain to protect and safeguard the rights of some of the most vulnerable members of society?

We have a special interest in the sections of the Equality Act 2010 related to religion or belief. We re pleased that this Act rewards the considerable effort that has been expended by individuals and organisations over many year to accord religion or belief the equivalent status to the other “protected characteristics”. We also acknowledge and applaud the fact that the Act in its totality recognises, for the first time in legislation, that individuals, families and communities are, more often than not, a bundle of differing characteristics. People for whom religion or belief has a central part in their lives can also be old or young, disabled, male or female (or be involved in gender reassignment), show certain characteristics identifiable with any racial or ethnic community, be gay, lesbian or transsexual. The approach taken in the Equality Act 2010 helps show how these characteristics can be reconciled and harmonised, rather than being seen as competing in a hierarchy of equalities. This aspect of the Act directly links equality with diversity, which is a positive factor in our present and future society.

Leicester Council of Faiths does not accept the assertion that someone is automatically disadvantaged or vulnerable simply because they possess or belong to one of the “protected characteristics”. The nature of these characteristics differs widely. Some have a positive influence on people’s lives, rather than a debilitating one. For example, we would not accept that being born into a tradition characterised by religion or belief, or being a member of a community identified with a religion or belief, is necessarily something to be compensated for by legislation. We are not arguing for special privileges for any group or community determined by religion or belief or any culture or identity associated with or determined by those factors. But we do believe that in twenty-first century Britain, we should be able to build a society where all people can live free of the threat of religion (either its presence or absence) being used as an excuse to discriminate against them.

Hopefully, the placing of the Equality Act 2010 on the Red Tape Challenge website will inspire those who care about equality, diversity, fairness and justice to find their voices and speak up in its favour. Reduction in the protection this Act affords would be a backward step and reprehensible in the extreme – not only for Britain today, but for future generations too.

Read our response on the Red Tape Challenge website. The Council of Faiths is currently sitting at the top of a total of 302 replies on this page.

REDP Core Reference Group

It's the regular bimonthly meeting of the Core Reference Group of the Regional and Equality Diversity Partnership (REDP). We're meeting at Leicestershire Centre for Integrated Living (LCIL) this afternoon - and as well as our hosts (representing disabled people), the meeting includes representatives of organisations working in the protected characteristics of faith or belief, older people, race and sexual orientation. There's a smaller torunout today than we've been used to at previous meetings; many of our regular attendees are caught up in tortuous negotiations with funders at the moment.

The following items are on our agenda this afternoon:

cuts in funding and support for equality-focused groups in East Midlands

our collective response to the Coalition's consultation on reforming the Equlaity and Human Rights Commission

our response to the Coalition's Red Tape Challenge to the Equality Act 2010

planning our conference: "Equality Act 2010 and its Duties" in Nottingham, 30 June

our current and future relations with English Regions Equalities Network

At the end of this month, REDP comes to the end of the second year of our initial three-year funding. We've been talking for several months now about how to make the partnership sustainable and a number of irons are in the fire. it struck me today, while discussing our plans for the next 12 months that our project could be described in the format of a three-act summer action-adventure movie (with each act akin to a year of our funding):

Act 1: You're given your mission

Act 2: Assemble and train your team for the mission

Act 3: Carry out your mission

Doesn't sound like much of a movie, perhaps, but I'm sure the bare bones are recognisable. In Act 3, REDP has to make its big impact. Our name has to be seen all over the place - and has to be associated with strong, positive outcomes. I've been put in charge of REDP's social media and am looking forward to using that to advance our cause.

Rosemarie Fitton is shadowing me this afternoon, as she comes to the end of her placement with Leicester Council of Faiths as part of her MA studies in Interreligious Relations at St Philip's Centre for Study and Engagement in a Multi-Faith Society.

Find out more about REDP: www.redp.org.uk

RELIGIOUS GROUPS HAVE TOO MUCH FREEDOM TO DISCRIMINATE

This article appears on the Guardian's Comment is Free (Cif Belief) website today:

Religious groups have too much freedom to discriminate

Now that faith groups are to become public service providers, the exemptions they have in British equality law must be narrowed

By Evan Harris

The Guardian has reported on those questioning the wisdom of contracting religious groups to deliver key public services. The government's "big society" initiative – it still seems too unfocused to call it policy – has, as one of its aims, the transfer of the delivery of some public services to voluntary sector providers on a greater scale than is currently the case.

It was envisaged by both this and the previous government that faith groups would be some of the new providers. It seems unjustified to argue against religious organisations providing public services, as it is discriminatory to single out those with a religious ethos for a prohibition on service provision. However, some religious organisations present extra challenges when being considered for the delivery of public services and it would be naive, foolish or perverse to ignore these.

First, they have a special exemption in equality law to discriminate against their employees narrowly on grounds of gender and sexual orientation (for priesthood and leadership roles) and more widely on the basis of religious belief. These exemptions are provided for in the European directive that underpins our anti-discrimination laws in this area. The problem is that the exemptions given in UK law by the last Labour government in the 2003 regulations and then in the 2010 Equality Act are far wider than provided for in the directive.

One of these exemptions is found in schedule 9, paragraph 3 of the 2010 Equality Act, allowing religious organisations to discriminate on the basis of religion in employment, in certain jobs and contexts. The last government faced infraction proceedings from the European Union for failing, unlike all the Catholic Mediterranean states, to properly limit these exemptions. The coalition needs to think more carefully about whether it wants to continue to fight the last government's battles. The concern is not only that workers are being required to sign up to a religious pledge when their job (say, secretary or caretaker) has no real religious element.

What is even more worrying is that staff of an existing secular provider – who make the beds in a hostel, or assist people with benefit claims – will face a faith test when the service and their employment contracts are transferred to a new provider that has a religious ethos. During the passage of the Equality Act, Liberal Democrats (that's me and Lynne Featherstone, now the equality minister) proposed an amendment that specified that religious tests were not to be permitted when delivering public services. This was vigorously opposed by religious leaders and the government. It was silently opposed by the Tories.

Second, our equality laws quite rightly prohibit the discrimination against users of public services on the ground of sexual orientation but the last government failed to extend this to religion.

When Featherstone and I proposed our amendment to prevent this, the then Labour minister Vera Baird argued that this was needed to allow Jewish care homes to function (as an example). Jewish-run care homes will appeal to the Jewish community, will cater to their needs and will fill their places – but they do not require to declare "no Muslims need apply" in order to do this.

Finally, it's not acceptable for a religious (or political) organisation to actively proselytise having been commissioned to deliver a public service, regardless of whether or not it is publicly funded. If religious organisations want to provide, for example, a hostel for the homeless, they must allow users in without needing to attend prayers, say grace or hear a sermon. Many religious organisations will not seek to discriminate or proselytise in this way but the organised lobby is fiercely protective of the latitude it has currently got.

The Liberal Democrats are not prepared to sit back and do nothing in the face of Labour and Conservative failure to protect public service workers and users from the risk of religious persecution. Grassroots members passed a motion at their last conference reiterating our call for narrower religious exemptions in the equality law and that in the meantime contracts with religious providers of public services need to have clear non-discrimination and non-proselytising clauses.