Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose)

"In the 19th century, Catholicism was regarded by many people in this country as thoroughly incompatible with Americanism. They saw it as a hostile foreign element that would subvert democracy. Today, a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic, and they are taken to be as American as Mountain Dew.

We've come a long way in religious tolerance. Or maybe not. The belief that Catholics are irredeemably alien and disloyal has given way to the fear that Muslims pose a mortal threat to our way of life."

Steve Chapman on the bogus threat of Islamic law in the US: Chicago Tribune, 10 June 2012

This is equally so in respect of the UK - Catholics and non-conformists were the "enemy within" for centuries (until the 20th century); in the 20th century it was Jews...  people of non-Christian faiths ... those of Irish origins... "ethnic minorities"...  and now, in the 21st century, specifically Muslims. Whose next?

Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose) - translation:  the more things change, the more they stay the same. 

Do we never learn the lessons of history??

*********

Equality & Diversity News No.4: April 2012

In this newsletter:

• Editorial: Monitoring for Discrimination or Monitoring for identify?
• Caste Discrimination Update.
• Imam blesses union of Gay Muslim couple in France
• Guidance on Religion and Belief for Managers
• Detective wins disability discrimination claim
• Man with Epilepsy wins disability discrimination claim
• Black people more likely to be jobless in Britain than US
• Half of UK's young black males are unemployed
• Prohibition of age discrimination in service delivery
• Man who lost job for turning 65 wins discrimination case
• Disabled teacher forced to quit job wins pay-out
• Update on statutory codes of practice on the Public Sector Equality Duty
• Any Questions/Comments
  

Editorial: Monitoring for Discrimination or Monitoring for Identity?

One of the perennial questions around equality and diversity concerns the issue of monitoring around the protected characteristics. It is now common practice for employers to monitor their employees for ethnicity, gender, disability and age, and more and more employers are considering introducing new monitoring areas such as sexual orientation and religion/belief. Most public bodies also regularly monitor their “customers” as well and ask them similar questions.

Such monitoring has not been without controversy, as there is often an instinctive reaction to having to define ourselves in predetermined ways which don’t fit easily into perceptions of our own identity. We also react against the notion that somehow our lives are “determined” by simple indicators (as expressed in the “black and white” categories we are presented with in such monitoring forms), rather than the complexities of what we all are – human beings. There is also suspicion o about the motives and intentions of public bodies in particular and how the information collected may be used. All these are legitimate concerns and those who introduce monitoring arrangements need to have the answers to these questions and be prepared to explain why they are collecting the information and the purposes it will be used for.

However, at the heart of this issue is, in my view, a misunderstanding of why the questions are being asked and the nature of the simple categories we are invited to tick. This is not helped by how the question is posed, as it often asks for people to tick the boxes that define their identity, when in really this is not really what is being asked for.

Equality monitoring should not be about – or perceived to be about - monitoring our self-defined identities, which are complex and shifting constantly over time and depend crucially on the context. In one context I will be “White” (this is particularly so when I visit India), in another “British” (when I am visiting Germany) and in another “English” (when I am in Scotland or Ireland); my age has naturally and inevitably changed over time but also changes in different contexts – when I am with young people I feel “older”, with my mother’s generation I am perceived to be (and thankful I feel) “younger”! As a heterosexual I rarely see my sexuality as defining my identity, as we live in a society that defines heterosexuality as “the norm”. I think, however, that if I were Gay this may be a more important signify in my life in certain contexts. I could go on with other examples, but I hope the above illustrates the point about the complex and shifting nature of identity – how could this ever be “captured” in an simple equality monitoring form with pre-defined categories – no wonder I might react against completing one if this is what I thought the purpose of the form was all about!

Equality monitoring is not about capturing identity, but capturing information that might be useful in being able to “see” how both personal and institutional discrimination/inequality might be operating and occurring – with the clear intention to try and do something about it (if inequalities can identified). Equality monitoring is about monitoring how discrimination can and does occur in our society, irrespective of what we, individually, my think or perceive our identity to be. It is about the results flowing from the behaviour of organisations and individuals that have unequal consequences, irrespective of intentions.

But I would go further. By discovering how discrimination may be occurring and how inequality is generated in our business, organisation or in the way we deliver services (and doing something about trying to eliminate or reduce it!) we move towards a society in which our individual, complex, identities are respected and valued and we are judged, not by the preconceived “boxes” we are placed in by direct and indirectly discriminatory behaviour and practices, but by (in the words of Martin Luther King) “the content of (our) character”.

So next time you are asked to complete a boring old equality monitoring form, don’t think “I don’t want to be defined in this way” (you are not and should not!), but rather: “by completing this form I am making a small contribution to identifying how discrimination may be operating and I am doing something to help get rid of it: thus create a more equal society”. It may make you feel differently about the process, or does it? I suppose it’s still a boring old form to complete....

Caste Discrimination Update

Last year I reported on an interesting Employment Tribunal case held in September 2011 on whether caste discrimination is covered by the Equality Act 2010. An Indian couple who met at a legal firm and subsequently had a “love marriage” alleged they were forced from their jobs because they were from different castes. After a 10-day hearing the tribunal judge re-listing the case for a further 15 days in March but, as far as I am aware, the result has not be made available as yet… so watch this space. See: http://tinyurl.com/bumqplj

Imam blesses union of Gay Muslim couple in France

Two Muslim gay men tied the knot in France with the blessing of an Imam. Ludovic Mohamed Zahed, a French man of Algerian origin, and his South African partner Qiyam al-Din, were reportedly married in accordance with Sharia (Islamic law) in the presence of a Mauritian Imam named Jamal who blessed their union on February 12, 2012. The two were previously able to marry in South Africa under the country’s same sex marriage laws, but France does not recognise same sex unions. See: http://tinyurl.com/d5fwasj

Guidance on Religion and Belief for Managers

Some very useful guidance on the application of policies and practice around religion and belief in higher education (and undoubtedly will also be useful for managers in other contexts as well) has been produced by University College London. The opening introduction states:

“UCL is an inclusive, secular university that prides itself on its long-standing commitment to equality and diversity. UCL’s commitment to religious equality in particular is integral to its identity and heritage. Moreover, for UCL to merit its reputation as London’s Global University it needs to ensure that its managers are equipped with the skills and knowledge to make fairness and equality a reality for staff of different faiths and none.”

To get a copy of the guidance go to: http://tinyurl.com/d3woml7

Detective wins disability discrimination claim

A female detective has won a compensation claim for disability discrimination against Warwickshire Police. Karen Beasley complained not enough was being done to help her with her progressive hearing loss. Mrs Beasley, who described herself as “someone with deafness who wears hearing aids,” made a successful compensation claim at the Birmingham Employment Tribunal.

She told the tribunal that the discrimination involved being refused permission to take the advanced driving test in January 2011, originally not being included on the list of officers taking an aptitude test, being assigned a low priority for an interview course and not re-assigned night detective duties and not provided with proper training or given the opportunity to gain formal accreditation. She further complained that she was allocated mundane work and that an email sent by another officer questioned her abilities. See: http://tinyurl.com/cce4mj7

Man with Epilepsy wins disability discrimination claim

A disabled man who worked for Solway Foods Ltd in Corby for more than 19 years has won his claim of constructive dismissal and disability discrimination against the company.

Despite suffering with epilepsy and being told such work could make him ill, Philip Hambly was given a new job sorting pallets on the production line last March. He immediately raised concerns, insisting that doing it would put himself and his co-workers in danger, but dispatch manager John Adkins and occupational health advisor Seymour Franklin disagreed. Mr Franklin claimed he undertook a risk assessment and concluded the job was safe. But Mr Hambly fell while doing the work and decided to resign.

During the case he received help and support from Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council (NREC). See: http://tinyurl.com/c2e7j3y

Black people more likely to be jobless in Britain than US

Black people in Britain are more likely to be unemployed than those in the United States, especially during recessions, with successive UK governments "failing to protect minority ethnic groups", research reveals.

A paper presented at the British Sociological Association's annual conference in Leeds shows that in the last three recessions, unemployment among Black British men was up to 19 percentage points higher than among those in America. See: http://tinyurl.com/8ygs83q

Half of UK's young black males are unemployed

Unemployment rate for Black 16 to 24-year-olds available for work is now double that for white counterparts, ONS data shows. See: http://tinyurl.com/89sq94u

Prohibition of age discrimination in service delivery

The prohibition of age discrimination in goods, facilities and services under the Equality Act 2010 has NOT come into effect on 6 April as originally planned. It is now likely to come into force in October.

Man who lost job for turning 65 wins discrimination case

An engineer who won a landmark age discrimination case after his employers told him to retire on his 65th birthday has seen the verdict upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Michael Bailey (68), had his employment with R&R Plant Hire, of King’s Dyke, Whittlesey, terminated on January 20, 2009 – the day of his 65th birthday. He was awarded £4,555 compensation last May after Judge Simon Richardson ruled that he was unfairly dismissed at an Employment Appeal Tribunal as Mr Bailey wished to continue working. His former employers tried to overturn that verdict, but the Court of Appeal in London upheld the decision at the beginning of April – and ordered the company to pay an additional £10,200 to Mr Bailey for legal costs built up defending the appeal.

The ruling could mean thousands of seniors across the country are able to stay in employment rather than being forced into retirement once they reach 65 years of age. Christopher Brooks, policy adviser on employment and skills at Age UK, welcomed the Court of Appeal’s verdict. Mr Brooks said:

“Discrimination on the grounds of age is not only wrong it is also illegal. Age UK believes older workers should be allowed to choose when they retire, but in reality often face being shut out of the job market through age discrimination. As a result, employers must recognise the value of older workers and put in place measures to help people in later life keep and find jobs. For example, introducing flexible working is shown to benefit both parties by improving work-life balance for the employee and productivity for the employer”

See: http://tinyurl.com/bltdwc4

Disabled teacher forced to quit job wins pay-out

A disabled teacher has been awarded a six-figure pay-out after an employment tribunal ruled she was constructively unfairly dismissed by a Market Harborough school.

Leigh Lewis, who has polyarthritis, told an industrial tribunal in Leicester that she became ill after being moved to a classroom at Meadowdale Primary that was further away from the staff room and the toilets, and she had to resign. Mrs Lewis told the hearing the extra walking she had to do at school made her unable to carry on in her post. She took Leicestershire Education Authority and the governors of Meadowdale to a tribunal, claiming she was constructively dismissed and discriminated against because of her disability. Tribunal chairman Christopher Goodchild ruled that Mrs Lewis was constructively unfairly dismissed. He said that the governors of Meadowdale failed to make reasonable adjustments and were thereby in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

See: http://tinyurl.com/7bn6nnl

Update on statutory codes of practice on the Public Sector Equality Duty

In March 2012, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced that it is no longer able to proceed with plans for further statutory codes of practice on the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The EHRC website states:

“We were intending to produce further statutory codes of practice on the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which came into force on 5 April 2011, and codes for the Further and Higher Education (FEHE) sector and schools.

Unfortunately, we are no longer able to proceed with these plans. The Government is keen to reduce bureaucracy around the Equality Act 2010, and feels that further statutory guidance may place too much of a burden on public bodies. Although the Commission has powers to issue codes, it cannot do so without the approval of the Secretary of State, as we are reliant upon government to lay codes before parliament, in order for them to be statutory.

It is the Commission’s view that, rather than creating a regulatory burden, statutory codes have a valuable role to play in making clearer to everyone what is and is not needed in order to comply with the Equality Act. However, as this is no longer an option, we feel the best solution is to issue our draft codes as non statutory codes instead. These non statutory codes will still give a formal, authoritative, and comprehensive legal interpretation of the PSED and education sections of the Act and will make it clear to everyone what the requirements of the legislation are.

The FEHE and schools underwent a full consultation in 2011 in the form of draft statutory codes, and we intend to publish the revised versions as non statutory codes shortly. The draft PSED non statutory codes will be published shortly for review and we will be looking for feedback on the draft texts so that we can make sure they fully meet the needs of public bodies and other potential users.”

For further information on EHRC Guidance and Codes see:  http://tinyurl.com/2fo5v3p

Any Questions/Comments

If you have questions or issues that you would like me to address in future newsletters, or you have comments and suggestions about the newsletter, please let me know by posting a comment on this blog.

************************************

An alternative "take" on modesty and the Burka/Niqab ban in France

The cartoon is from the Daily Telegraph (now that's a pleasant surprise!).


*********

Muslim Women Speak Out

A few weeks ago a debate raged within the columns of the Northants Evening Telegraph and on their web-site. The issue? Should the burka (niqab) be banned. This followed Kettering MP Philip Hollobone describing the burka as a "paper bag" and subsequently calling for it to be banned (the burka that is, not the paper bag!).

This follows similar debates that are taking place around the UK and internationally (especially in France and Turkey). Often a unique feature of these debates is that they are overwhelming dominated by "Christian" or "secular" men wanting to control what a (small minority) of Muslim women should or shouldn't wear. In France the debate goes even wider than the burka, with the Hijab (or headscarf) being banned in certain public places and in education. What is, however, often missing from the debate is what Muslim women themselves feel on this issue (whether or not they wear the burka, hijab or other forms of clothing).

Recently, however, the views of some Muslim women in Kettering has been sent to me and, with their consent, I have agreed to publish it in full. It takes the form of a letter that was sent to Philip Hollobone. I make no further comment myself.

Dear Mr Hollobone

RE: Your views on Women wearing the ‘Burka’ that was reported in the press

United Kingdom prides itself on Freedom of speech and expression. This is the foundation for our politics and our British Lifestyle and as British
Citizens we are proud to say that we have the platform to express how we feel and have the freedom to express our individuality.

Hence, everyone has an individual right to choose what they wear and no one has the right to impose their personal views and make judgements on other people’s character, personality and behaviour based on their dress. Furthermore, we live in a society where fashion is an expression of one’s inner personality.

The wearing of the ‘burkah’ or veil (by the way the correct term is niqab) in public by a practicing Muslim woman is an individual choice, its an expression of how she wishes to dress and she is fulfilling the requirements of her faith, just as it is for Nuns who wish to adopt a way of life of covering of their head. When you see a Nun, she portrays a positive image in most people: you think of purity, someone friendly, humble, caring and a religious person serving God.

Furthermore, from observation, a Nun’s dress has an impact in the way most men would behave toward her. She is treated with respect. Also, no one would question that Nuns cannot communicate or interact with society due to the way they dress. Similarly, a Muslim woman who decides to cover her face is doing so due to her individual and religious choice and to make judgements about her character and about her relationships with others because of the way she dresses is insulting and disrespectful to her.

Your comments about Muslim women wearing the ‘Burka’, portrays a negative image in the media and it is validating racial and religious intolerance in our society. Such viewpoints incite hatred; lead to victimisation and it gives support to the extremists living in our communities. As a public official, an upstanding member of the community, surely it is your responsibility to promote harmony, tolerance, good community relationships and portray a positive image of all faiths in our community and not cast/ endorse such stereotypical views. Indeed, your comment could be interpreted as a breach of the Standards Board of England Code.

By wearing the veil or Burka, you have questioned the competency of these women interacting with society and you have made judgements without any evidence about them. If according to you this woman finds our society so objectionable, then you would have not seen her in public, at a social, friendly, family environment.

A woman should not be judged by what she wears. Some people may decide to cover up and others may decide to wear as little as possible. Some people may admire some women who wear sexually provocative clothes and some might find such dress shameful or offensive and make judgements about her intentions and her character. Intelligence, personality and competency cannot be determined by clothes. We live in the 21st century in a country where we have freedom to express ourselves, and women now have the right to vote, a right we were once denied in Britain.

If you think that the Burka restricts a woman’s competency to function in society then by your stereotype she should have been home locked away and never be seen. Your level of intolerance towards what women wear in public does not seem to be any different from oppressive male dominated regimes and countries we accuse of having little or no regard for the rights and freedom of women.

The views you have expressed in the media, demonstrates that you have little understanding of our religion and dress. Education is liberating as is the way one dresses. The Muslim women in Kettering are a mix of working women and housewives who positively contribute to society. We have never found that our dress code has restricted us in anyway. We take part in activities in the community and have good relationship with all irrespectively of their race, ethnicity, culture, faith or intelligence.

You have an Islamic Community Centre in Kettering and it is there not only for its congregation but also for anyone who is interested to educate themselves about the religion of Islam. If you wish to discuss this matter of the Burka further or wish to learn more about women or men’s dress or women’s rights or on any other issues, then please feel free to arrange a meeting where we would be happy to have a dialogue with you.

Kind Regards

On behalf of
Women of Kettering Muslim Association
Kettering Ethnic Minority Women’s
Association
Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council

**************

Tory Intolerance shows its ugly face

For anyone who doesn't read the Northants Evening Telegraph the most important debate currently raging within its pages (and on its web-site) is still going on: Should we ban the Burka?

All the other problems in the UK, and indeed the world, have now been officially solved, so we can now concetrate on this so, so important issue that was kicked off by Kettering's Member of Parliament, Philip Hollohead (sorry Hollobone) who compared the burka to wearing a paper bag over your head. The Evening Telegraph felt this was a bit of a step too far and described it as "insensitive". It wasn't insensitive, it was insulting and intended, quite deliberately, to be so - and to appeal to the worse instincts and prejudices of some the ET's readers. They duely responded as was intended and with such predictable knee-jerk responses, with little reference to fact, logic or indeed basic human rights principles.

Playing the overt "race"-card in a general election is not now acceptable for oh-so-New Conservative Party MPs, but instead a new "coded" game (which, of course, everyone understands is really the same game re-packaged), is being played instead: bash-the-burka.

You can read the opening salvo in this debate at: http://www.northantset.co.uk/features/Debate-rages-over-the-right.6042533.jp

It also continues at:

http://www.northantset.co.uk/news/MP-reveals-the-truth-behind.6048801.jp

and again at:

http://www.northantset.co.uk/news/Burka-debate-A-note-from.6044670.jp

In tonight's (9-2-10) Evening Telegraph, after days of prejudice, intolence and even abuse (which was deleted from the ET's web-site eventually!) at last three letters were printed that put across an alternative perspective. I make no apology for printing one of them (from me!):

Mr. Hollobone's explanation for his position on the burka says much more about him than the issue he is pontificating to us on. Why did he find a woman wearing a burka "inappropriate and frankly offensive"? What harm has it done to him? Did he try to speak to her or did he only see the piece of cloth she was wearing? Did he only see the covering and not the human being within? Why did it evoke such strong emotions - look into your heart, Mr. Hollobone, and you may well be frightened as to what you find about yourself! Are we not taught at primary school not to "judge a book by its cover" - as a lesson in understanding prejudice?

A burka is a piece of clothing worn by a very small minority of Muslim women. It is not something I would wear, but it is certainly not offensive, inappropriate or threatening, any more than a Nun's habit, or a Vicar's cassock, or a Sikh's turban or a woman with a scarf, or the Mayor of Wellingborough's garish arctic survival kit that he wears at official ceremonies.

An interesting take on women's "liberation" too. So, you liberate a so-called oppressed minority by ... criminalising or banning what they wear. What a contribution towards increasing freedom and choice - lock them up! Great stuff Mr. Hollobone. I am glad you don't want to "liberate" me from anything!

The more important question is not "should we ban the burka?", but "why has this issue generated so much heat, venom, anger, hostility and downright viciousness and in many cases rampant prejudice?" Are we so weak and unsure about our own identies that we have to attack someone else's? Don't we have more important problems to worry about? Have we not learnt the lessons about what such blind prejudices and populist anger can lead on to?

To be frank I am appalled and horrified by how easy it has been to evoke such an un-British populist outpouring of hatred directed at such a very small minority within our society.

***********

Leader of UK Muslim Parliament speaking in Wellingborough

The leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, Dr. Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, will be speaking in Wellingborough on Wednesday, May 21st at 7.00pm in the Victoria Centre, Palk Road, Wellingborough.

The Muslim Parliament (http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/) is “working towards creating an informed, caring and morally upright Muslim community ready to engage with its environment at all levels”. It has campaigned against forces marriage, for equality of men and women within Islam, opposed religious hatred and intolerance and at a recent conference in Dublin Dr. Siddiqui said “(the) time has come when we must begin to look at the philosophical roots of fundamentalism in Muslim societies”. Dr. Siddiqui is also a leading light in the organisation Muslims for a Secular Democracy.

The event at which Dr. Siddiqui is speaking is organised by Independent Socialists in Wellingborough and is on the theme: “Are Religion and Socialism compatible?”. Other speakers at the event include Cllr. Shashi Dholakia (a Hindu and leader of the Labour Group on Wellingborough Council), Cynthia Bailey (a Christian and member of Wellingborough Inter-faith Forum) and Mike Matthews (a Humanist and active community worker).

The meeting is open to the public and all are welcome.

More Islamaphobia - and its antidote!

Following my earlier posting (It’s Islamaphobia, Stupid -see below), the following comments were made on the blog of fellow Wellingborough (Tory) Councillor, Tony Sharp. If you want examples of Islamaphobia in action you need hardly look much further:

"However I would warn against falling into the trap of adopting the phrase Islamophobia. And regarding it as a bad thing, in the same way that racism is a bad thing.Fear of Islam is quite rational based on the beliefs of the religion and they way it causes people to behave once it gets the upper hand.Anyone who isn't Islamophobic has either already surrendered to Islam ( which is what being a Muslim means) or hasn't understood what the religion stands for and its world view.What is irrational is the Islmophilia (sic) from the mostly atheists of the left." (Man in a Shed)

It wouldn't matter if it were Islam or what it was. It is just a corrosive counter-culture trying to impose itself over ours. Things always are simplistic in the end. (Bretwalda Edwin-Higham)

"many in the media do not understand that for many of us what they call islamaphobia is a carefuly thought out and considered stance of long standing.I suppose they find it difficult to believe that anybody could have a position founded on facts rather than guilt driven envy and hate...thebedrock for many nulabour supporters beliefs." (thud)

"The fear of Islam, its beliefs and method of expansion and gaining of power and then its treatment of infidel once it has gained power seems a rational enough reaction." (Man in a Shed)

If however you want an antidote to Islamaphobia you may want to have a look at this video-clip made by US Muslims: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbcmPe0z3Sc

Or try: http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/ (The Muslim Parliament)

Or: http://www.bmsd.org.uk/ (British Muslims for Secular Democracy)

It's Islamaphobia, Stupid

Without getting into the detail of the Archbishop’s intervention around different legal systems for different religious groups, the more interesting issue arising from this fiasco is the way it illustrates the extent of Islamaphobia in the UK today, and how rapidly British society is back-tracking on its commitment to respect diversity and to integrate new communities (and some – such as Muslims - who are not so new!).

One would have thought, by the reaction to Dr Rowan Williams’ proposals, that he was suggesting the end of British civilisation as we know it and the destruction of all that is dear. In fact all he was proposing (rightly or wrongly – and I think wrongly!) was that Muslims enjoy the same rights that are currently enjoyed by Christians (as the established church enjoying centuries old traditions of Ecclesiastical Law) and the Jewish community, who have parallel arrangements for dealing with Jewish family or civil law that is at least 100 years old. Having parallel legal traditions for civil law (particularly family law) was well established by the British when ruling India and the secular Indian state still has separate family law jurisdictions for Hindus and Muslims. So his proposals were not radical afterall, just miss-timed during a period in which anything suggesting Muslims may want to do some things differently is seen as either a threat or (in SUN-speak) "daft". Remember the simialr hysteria not so long ago over headscarves and the Burka?

But this row is really about something very different and much more serious. In the current climate it is almost impossible to suggest any accommodation to Muslim sensitivities without being accused of treason or being someone undermining "British" traditions or values (even if its blatently not true). What is being whipped up is Islamaphobia pure and simple and it must be stopped in its tracks! It may be Muslims today (and they are currently the vicitims of a rising tide of racist attacks and vilification), but watch out - other minorities will also come under threat as the frenzy intensifies against “the other”. This is the real danger in the situation and it is time that all people of good will, who believe in a society grounded in toleration, respect for difference, human rights and equality, stand up against those who wish to ferment more hatred, resulting in even more isolation and alienation within the Muslim and other minority communities.

If Dr. Williams can be labelled a “supporter of terrorism” by the SUN, watch out, YOU (and me) might be next. Therein lies the road to tyranny.

Councillor calls for scaled down Christmas in the interests of inter-faith understanding

Cllr. Paul Crofts, the Independent Socialist Councillor for the multi-faith/racial Castle Ward in Wellingborough today called for Christmas celebrations to be scaled down in order to avoid offending people of other faiths. He said: “We now live in a diverse society and we have to be sensitive to people of all religious beliefs. Christmas is now too dominant and many people of other faiths are unhappy at this. We must listen to them and ……….”.

Have you read stories like this before? How did you feel at the time - confused, incensed, upset, concerned about “political correctness gone mad” or the dangers of "multi-culturalism"? This is the reaction that such reports generate – and this is what is mostly intended!

Of course, I would never say this, but that's not the point. It is almost expected (even hoped for?), that people like me will say such things. And for a moment you actually believed it didn’t you? It fits within our widely-held stereotype of a “mad”, “politically correct”, “left-wing”, “loony” politician. It re-enforces prejudices and hostility to those of us who oppose racism, injustice and inequality. Even more important though, it re-enforces hostility to those people of other faiths and traditions who are allegedly seeking such change (when they are not).

The reality is that no-one within any mainstream faith tradition, as far as I am aware, has called for the “abolition of Christmas” or anything of this kind. No one who supports and understands genuine multi-faith, anti-racist, community cohesion work would ever say such a thing. Indeed, I (for one) have spent most of my life promoting the recognition and celebration of more festivals, from different religious (and other) traditions, not less – even though I am an atheist. I want people to have more fun together, live and learn from one another - not to hate or fear the “other”.

It must be recognised, however, that some people have made insensitive and wrong decisions around these issues in the past. Birmingham City Council’s “Winterval” (instead of “Christmas”) festival some years ago comes to mind, and some schools have allegedly stopped performing the nativity story in the naïve belief that it may “offend” Muslims. All these initiatives may have been well-meaning, but they are often based on ignorance and misunderstandings about other faith traditions and show a depressing lack of awareness of what living in a diverse, multicultural, multi-faith, society is really all about. Everyone should be a winner - its not about people giving up things, but about respecting an valuing everyone. But the expression “The road to hell is often paved with good intentions” comes to mind.

Watch out over the next few weeks for media stories of this kind. Be warned and duly sceptical. Do not believe everything you read in the press – but watch how easily ordinary people will believe the stories (just as you did at the beginning of this one?). Watch out for the accusations of “political correctness gone mad”, but remember that Jesus Christ may well have faced similar accusations during his life as well. Now that story might be worth telling!

Happy Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hanukkah or just "seasons greetings".

Open Day at Wellingborough Mosque

Given the current state of hostility and Islamaphobia against Mulsims, both in the UK and the United States, the open day at Wellinborough Mosque on Sunday September 9th 2007 was a real pleasure. Visitors were warmly received by members of the Muslim community and there were opportunitiers to ask question and to witness the traditional "call to prayer". A short presentation was given on what being a Muslim means and the rituals undertaken during prayers were explained. Afterwards there was food and drink and further informal discussion and opportunities to answer questions.

Visitors to the event included police officers, community support officers and representatives from local government.