Humanism, atheism and other freedoms

Deciding what constitutes ‘discrimination’ isn’t always an easy matter.But an employment tribunal in London has just made a very wise decision.

Lillian Ladele was a registrar with Islington Council, in North London. One of her duties was conducting marriages – and, with recent changes to the law, this now extends to civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

But there was a problem. Ladele is a Christian, and she decided that her beliefs did not allow her to carry out such unions. She refused to perform gay weddings. Islington Council fired her.

She took the council to an employment tribunal, which sided with her. They found that she had been discriminated against on religious grounds. But the case went to appeal, and the employment appeal tribunal rightly concluded that it was not the council but Ladele herself who was guilty of discrimination.

The duties of a registrar are defined by law. Ladele’s religious beliefs are her own, personal choice. If these prevent her from carrying out the duties of a registrar then, clearly, she is not competent to fulfill that role. When the law – and therefore the duties of a registrar – changed, Ladele should have asked herself whether she should continue in that role. It was a matter for her personal conscience. What she decided to do was to attempt to remain in her job and force her views on others by saying that she would not carry out that job properly. This was a selfish and unreasonable decision by her.

She claims that she never intended to deny the rights of gay people. But that was precisely what she was doing. They do, indeed, have a right to a civil union. She has no right to deprive them of this merely because of her personal beliefs. This is not a religious issue – religion has no place in such government business. This is a civil liberties issue and Ladele is clearly guilty of eroding the civil liberties in Islington.

The council is not guiltless in all this. The tribunal found that they had handled the situation badly. Nevertheless, the key issue has been successfully resolved: it is now clear that a government functionary does not have the right to discriminate against people purely of the basis of that functionary’s private and irrelevant beliefs. A victory for common sense.

The National Union of Journalists has released an important new film about police harrassment of photojournalists. It’s required viewing for anyone who cares about freedom of the press or civil liberties in general.

The process of destroying freedom often starts with steps that seem reasonable. If you want to strip everyone of their civil liberties, start with a group everyone despises. Few groups fit this bill better than paedophiles.

There is a famous and oft-quoted text that reads:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then … they came for me … And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

The poem is generally attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984), though there is some debate about both the attribution and the wording. But no matter: the sentiment is clear – it’s important we recognise dangers even when they are not targeted at ourselves.

But the poem has a weakness. It addresses our need to consider the fate of ‘others’, but it doesn’t extend that unambiguously to ‘despised others’. And this is where the erosion of our freedoms more typically starts.

The greatest resistance to an attempt to take away a freedom we cherish occurs when the law or regulation is first made. Once a rule is established, prohibiting this or regulating that, then many will see the battle as lost and will put their energies into the next fight. Little by little, freedom becomes eroded.

The trick, then, as far as the authorities are concerned, is to make the regulation seem reasonable. Phrases such as ‘for your safety’ or ‘good for society’ are often deployed whenever the result of a new law is to place limits on your freedoms.

It works even better if the restrictions affect a minority group within society that the majority despise or fear or for whom they can raise no compassion. And paedophiles are to today’s society what the Jews were to the Nazis. Who cares if paedophiles have their freedoms stripped away: they brought it on themselves, right? Surely they don’t deserve the same benefits and liberties as the rest of us.

The latest proposed restrictions in the UK would ban convicted paedophiles from social networking sites such as Facebook and Bebo. The ban would be implemented by the sites themselves, based on email addresses supplied by the Government. Paedophiles would be obliged to supply details of the email accounts they use.

Presumably, this is an attempt to prevent the cyberstalking of children. There is some debate about the extent to which this happens, and whether it presents a genuine threat. But I have sympathy for the attitude that one case is one too many.

The scheme is clearly unworkable. Computer forensic experts can tell you that the most active (and potentially dangerous) paedophiles are technically adept. They would know how to use proxies, TOR, wardriving, cyber-cafes and other technologies and techniques to hide their identities. Gmail and Hotmail accounts can be created in seconds. And most social networking sites are based outside the UK’s jurisdiction.

It might also have the opposite effect to the one desired. The restrictions would affect only convicted paedophiles. Those yet to be caught could still roam Facebook. And, believing that such sites are now safer places, children might be tempted to let their guard down.

What is more sinister for all of us is that this new rule would establish a mechanism by which the authorities can designate a group that is to be denied the use of some portion of the Internet. And the actual restriction would be imposed not by government authorities but by commercial organisations – the Government gets to keep its hands clean.

How easy it would be to start extending this mechanism to other groups, other parts of the net, other areas of life. If someone notices, just blame it on ‘mission creep’. Because we feel a natural distaste for those branded as paedophiles, who will oppose this regulation? After all, ‘it’s for the children’. Once it is accepted, though, there will be little to stop its expansion to embrace us all.

Humanity, law and democracy are poor protection against religiously inspired murder. But they are the only means available to us that offer some measure of safety while allowing us to call ourselves civilised.

(more…)

The police state creeps up on us, step by stealthy step. Every law, every restriction, is invoked for our safety and convenience. But a totalitarian state feeds on laws, twisting them to its own ends.

(more…)

The Metropolitan Police has been found guilty of a health & safety violation. It doesn’t seem all that sorry, though.

When Metropolitan Police officers murdered Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005, they were in breach of health and safety regulations, a court has decided.

It’s surprising anyone needed a court case to decide that — the slaying of an innocent man wouldn’t strike many sane people as good practice in the workplace. All the same, the Met Police pleaded not guilty. Now it’s having to pay a £175,000 fine and £385,000 costs for its failings.

Sir Ian Blair, the Met’s Commissioner, reiterated that he’s not resigning over the affair. He did offer the family and friends of de Menezes another apology, but it rings somewhat hollow.

The problem is that authorities like the Police often have grossly skewed values when it comes to their own behaviour. It’s a given that police forces will always take whatever powers they can grab, because they always perceive their work to be so important that it overrides any other considerations — such as freedom of speech and other civil liberties. That’s why we have to be so cautious about granting new police powers: after all, society is not run for the benefit of the police — it is their function to serve us.

At the same time as making the apology, Blair also made excuses.

“As far as we know, this is the first time that such legislation has been applied to fast moving police operations where the public are in danger,” he said.

This is a trick often used in the co-called ‘War on Terror’. What danger was he referring to, exactly? As we lose our freedoms and walk slowly but surely towards a police state, it is to the sound of the powers that be wailing of the threat to those same liberties from terrorists. It’s all for our own good, apparently. But where is this threat?

Terrorism is real and must be fought. But what we suffer from most is the threat of terrorism, and the greatest damage being wrought on our society is coming from those who claim to protect us.

“The difficulties shown in this trial were those of an organisation struggling, on a single day, to get to grips with a simply extraordinary situation – its greatest operational challenge in a generation,” added Blair.

What situation? A plumber going to work? The mighty Met Police can’t deal with that? A man catching a Tube train is the “greatest operational challenge in a generation”?

The Met Police screwed up and its incompetence resulted in the murder of an innocent man. Blair and his organisation should have the decency and honesty to admit that, not hide behind these self-aggrandising lies.