Repeal requirements for Collective Worship and Religious Education in Schools

Repeal Sections 69 – 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (and any other related legislation) which require religious education and acts of collective worship in schools.

Faith or no faith in religion should be left to the individual, not the state, their parents, teachers or anyone else. People (and especially children) should be free to discover the wide range of beliefs that are and that have been held throughout the history of human civilization.

The law allows for exemptions where the parent requests, but religion should be a personal choice where someone is not predisposed towards something based on the content of their religious education at school.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal Sections 69 – 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (and any other related legislation) which require religious education and acts of collective worship in schools.

Faith or no faith in religion should be left to the individual, not the state, their parents, teachers or anyone else. People (and especially children) should be free to discover the wide range of beliefs that are and that have been held throughout the history of human civilization.

The law allows for exemptions where the parent requests, but religion should be a personal choice where someone is not predisposed towards something based on the content of their religious education at school.

Subsume the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred into the existing, and perfectly adequate Incitement to Racial Hatred legislation.

The crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred was created to close a loophole in the previous law. The crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred already protected Jewish and Hindu people from hate-speech (being both races and religions) so the BNP decided to change their tactics to attacking Muslims (because Islam isn't a race and so they could get away with it).

 

As with the old adage, exceptions make bad law. The idea of this massive legal apparatus just to stop a BNP hate campaign that few will listen to is ill thought through. As a result of badly-drafted law, it is now illegal to criticise another's religious beliefs too strongly. Religion, unlike race, is based on belief, and is not merely a tribal affiliation – people should have the freedom to discuss the basis of their beliefs freely without fear, in order for religious groups to remain grounded in reason and avoid fundamentalism.

 

I propose that the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred be abolished, and the crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred amended to cover not only those groups that are a 'race' by ethnicity, but also any group that views itself as connected by a filial bond in its' belief system (such as Christians, who see themselves as the adopted family of God, or Muslims, who see themselves as the spiritual descendents of Ishmael – this would also cover hatred against other groups like the Freemasons, who see themselves as brothers, or Americans, who are not a single race, but have a common affinity through their constitution and its values). This would mean it would still be a crime to incite hatred against Muslims just for being Muslims, but it would not be a crime to suggest that the belief in polygamy is a degrading idea to women.

Why is this idea important?

The crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred was created to close a loophole in the previous law. The crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred already protected Jewish and Hindu people from hate-speech (being both races and religions) so the BNP decided to change their tactics to attacking Muslims (because Islam isn't a race and so they could get away with it).

 

As with the old adage, exceptions make bad law. The idea of this massive legal apparatus just to stop a BNP hate campaign that few will listen to is ill thought through. As a result of badly-drafted law, it is now illegal to criticise another's religious beliefs too strongly. Religion, unlike race, is based on belief, and is not merely a tribal affiliation – people should have the freedom to discuss the basis of their beliefs freely without fear, in order for religious groups to remain grounded in reason and avoid fundamentalism.

 

I propose that the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred be abolished, and the crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred amended to cover not only those groups that are a 'race' by ethnicity, but also any group that views itself as connected by a filial bond in its' belief system (such as Christians, who see themselves as the adopted family of God, or Muslims, who see themselves as the spiritual descendents of Ishmael – this would also cover hatred against other groups like the Freemasons, who see themselves as brothers, or Americans, who are not a single race, but have a common affinity through their constitution and its values). This would mean it would still be a crime to incite hatred against Muslims just for being Muslims, but it would not be a crime to suggest that the belief in polygamy is a degrading idea to women.

Repeal Religious Discrimination Employment Legislation

Of all of the employment discrimination legislation the protection of religious beleif is the only one that is about choice. Employees (or potential employees) are not able to choose their gender. age, race, sexual orientation etc and as such thses pieces of legislation are necessary. People choose their religious belief and, as such, should accept that all choice brings consequences.

This does not mean that I advocate any form of bullying, harrasment or other nasty things towards people who hold particular beliefs – this would all remain covered by other laws anyway. However, I do think we should have the right to consider a person's beliefs (if relevant) when making recruitment and career decisions about them.

Why is this idea important?

Of all of the employment discrimination legislation the protection of religious beleif is the only one that is about choice. Employees (or potential employees) are not able to choose their gender. age, race, sexual orientation etc and as such thses pieces of legislation are necessary. People choose their religious belief and, as such, should accept that all choice brings consequences.

This does not mean that I advocate any form of bullying, harrasment or other nasty things towards people who hold particular beliefs – this would all remain covered by other laws anyway. However, I do think we should have the right to consider a person's beliefs (if relevant) when making recruitment and career decisions about them.

End Sharia Law in the UK

To get rid of this ridiculous law.

Sharia (or Islamic) law is based on a combination of sources, including the Quran, the Hadith or Sunna (sayings and actions of Prophet Mohammad), and Islamic jurisprudence and rulings or fatwas issued by scholars.

Sharia law has been implemented in the UK since the early 1980s by Sharia Councils and since 2007 by Muslim Arbitration Tribunals.
The decisions of Sharia and other religious courts are arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly against women and children.

Why is this idea important?

To get rid of this ridiculous law.

Sharia (or Islamic) law is based on a combination of sources, including the Quran, the Hadith or Sunna (sayings and actions of Prophet Mohammad), and Islamic jurisprudence and rulings or fatwas issued by scholars.

Sharia law has been implemented in the UK since the early 1980s by Sharia Councils and since 2007 by Muslim Arbitration Tribunals.
The decisions of Sharia and other religious courts are arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly against women and children.