The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) has started up a fund to defend humanists under threat.
Over the last 5 years, the IHEU has led the way in providing advocacy and support for humanists at risk around the world.
The IHEU is at the forefront of identifying and raising awareness of a disturbing new trend:
— growing violence and discrimination targeted at non-religious individuals and groups around the world.
We want to continue highlighting and campaigning on this topic and defending individual humanists at risk. And we need your help.
Here are just some of the ways your gift may help:
• £20 would cover the cost of producing a letter of support for someone whom IHEU has verified is at risk and who is claiming asylum
• £100 could fund direct personal advisory support between IHEU officers and individuals at risk
• £400 could support a high-level meeting between IHEU and representatives at international institutions such as the United Nations
• £700 could fund one of our Member Organizations from a hostile country to be represented as part of our delegation at the UN Human Rights Council
• £2,000 could support someone whom IHEU has verified as at risk to their life to get to safety
In countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and the Maldives, humanist bloggers and activists have been repeatedly targeted by Islamist militants, and even murdered for their work. These are humanists, championing human rights, equality, and bravely daring to confront fundamentalism, even when surrounded by hostile groups.
And in thirteen countries around the world, the non-religious can be put to death under laws against ‘apostasy’ and ‘blasphemy’. In Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Mauritania this is a very real threat, with multiple people currently accused of ‘apostasy’ and facing possible death sentences.
We need your support to help humanists at risk.
We work on this issue in three main ways:
• Through the publication of our annual Freedom of Thought Report, the IHEU provides a detailed overview of areas where the law, policy and practice of states discriminates against the non-religious. The report advances human rights by 1) leveraging criticism against countries where the human rights of the non-religious are infringed, 2) highlighting individual case studies of violence and discrimination, and 3) opening up a new discussion at the international level around the targeted persecution of non-religious people specifically. With an innovative rating system, a new fully online edition, and the data openly published under a Creative Commons license, the IHEU publication sets a class-leading standard for civil society reports on novel human rights topics.
(Map showing aggregated data from the Freedom of Thought Report on the level of legal discrimination and persecution against the non-reilgious around the world. More info.)
• In our advocacy and campaigns work we champion human rights. At the United Nations we highlight persecution of the non-religious and raise individual cases at the highest level. For example, last week we gave voice to Ensaf Haidar, whose husband Raif Badawi has been imprisoned in Saudi Arabia for five years, for advocating liberalism and secluarism. In her statement, delivered by IHEU’s representative, Ensaf said: “The peaceful expression of opinion and thought is a non-negotiable human right. It is the right of all human beings with no exception. I call on the very Council charged with the protection and promotion of human rights to do more to pressure its member Saudi Arabia to release my husband and all others like him, jailed and mistreated for standing up for the human rights of all.” The IHEU also provides coordination for the End Blasphemy Laws campaign, an international coalition of organisations which seeks to highlight the discriminatory nature of blasphemy laws, in-line with the policy of the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament.
(The IHEU co-founded the International Coalition Against Blasphemy Laws which runs the End Blasphemy Laws campaign.)
• On top of all this research, advocacy and campaigning, the IHEU has taken up casework and championed persecuted individuals, advising and supporting people who are living under threat, or seeking asylum or humanitarian assistance. The IHEU has helped numerous individuals to relocate or otherwise find greater security after being targeted for expressing their humanist values or secularist criticisms.
(The threat is a horrible reality! Yameen Rasheed was killed in April by suspected Islamist militants. IHEU had met him in Geneva earlier this year, where he was championing human rights. After his brutal murder, he was described in the media by a friend as a “humanist”, and “a very bright mind”.)
The IHEU has been recognised as a global leader in highlighting the persecution of Humanists, atheists and secularists under the human rights framework. This year the work of IHEU was recognised by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief as the only civil society contribution in their first report to the Human Rights Council. The work of IHEU has transformed the way that human rights for non-religious people are seen, drawing world-wide attention to the targeted violence and systematic discrimination faced in many countries.
Now is the time to support us.
Please give today and help us to defend humanists at risk around the world.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization incorporated in New York, USA. And registered in England, number FC020642.
As an alternative to GoFundMe you can give via iheu.org/donate.
Or by bank transfer to:
Account name: “International Humanist and Ethical Union”
Sort code: 20-41-41
Account number: 50958840
SWIFT code: BARCGB22
IBAN number: GB59BARC20414150958840.
Please use “WHD2017” as the payment reference.
Or you can send a cheque / check payable to “International Humanist and Ethical Union” to our office address:
International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)
39 Moreland Street
London EC1V 8BB
We will acknowledge all donations and we can provide a receipt on request.
From the British Humanist Association:
The news that our patron Stephen Fry is under criminal investigation in Ireland for allegedly committing ‘blasphemy’ is enough to send chills down your spine. We’re urging the Irish Government to repeal its blasphemy law (passed in 2009), and we remain extremely concerned by a growing trend of European countries, such as Denmark and Ireland, re-activating ‘dormant’ blasphemy laws to silence criticism of religion.
This trend has to stop, and we need to grow and scale up our campaigns against blasphemy laws – everywhere in the world. Please, if you haven’t joined us already, will you join the BHA today?
We also have reason to be concerned by a startling letter published by the Church of England at the weekend, which urged even greater influence for religion in UK politics, claiming Christianity as an exclusive ‘wellspring’ of moral values, and condemning secularism – the very best guarantee we all have of being treated fairly, whatever your religion or belief.
You’d be forgiven for thinking the religious lobbies were trying to drag us back decades and erase the social progress we’ve all fought for, tooth and nail, in spite of religious lobbying. As Stephen Fry once said, in times like these, ‘it is essential to nail one’s colours to the mast as a humanist.’ If you haven’t joined us already, please, don’t put it off.
Bob Churchill of the IHEU discusses the annual Freedom of Thought Report, which highlights state repression and extremist violence worldwide.
This year has seen disquieting trends in global politics: the continued prevalence of Islamist extremism in many parts of the world, and the rise of reactionary populist nativism in others. Perhaps it is no surprise then, that this year’s Freedom of Thought Report is not a happy read. This annual survey of discrimination and persecution against non-religious people across the world has been published by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) since 2012. Here, Bob Churchill, director of communications at the IHEU and editor of the report, answers questions about the report and the status of free thought across the world.
Here in England, we tend to take religious freedom for granted. But it was not always so. Up to the 18th century, it could be very dangerous to be an atheist, and at the very least there were serious restrictions on non-members of the established church. Even up to the 19th century, you had to be an Anglican to go to university or (apart from Jews or Quakers) to get married.
We may forget that for many people their religion still requires that others should not be allowed to practise their own beliefs freely, and given a chance, they would force that on the rest of us.
In some parts of the world, not believing still can mean death at the hands of the state or of mobs. This is why we can be impressed at the courage of Iranian blogger Kaveh Mousavi (a pseudonym) who would certainly be murdered if he were known. He writes:
So this is what good atheism has done for me: atheism has enabled me to wage a war to liberate those “the few cubic centimeters inside my skull”. It is ultimately a war destined to be lost – I will never not be the child of my time and my place, and I will never be entirely free in my thought. But it is a worthy war to wage nevertheless, for every battle won is a great victory in itself.
Because of atheism I can support democracy, oppose theocracy, support the equal rights for women and LGBT+ people without having to hold sacred a book which embodies the opposite of all these values and I do not have to resolve the mental dissonance of such an intellectual contradiction.
Because of atheism I can easily accept science and not be forced to choose between my dogma and the facts on issues such as evolution or circumcision or masturbation or abortion.
Because of atheism I can laugh at Mohammad and all else that is sacred, and save my outrage for the real injustices in the world, instead of getting angry at harmless satire targeting warlords of the past.
Because of atheism I can indulge in my harmless desires and to consider the naked human body beautiful, not something to be covered in shame.
Because of atheism I can think about the great questions without a God vetoing certain areas and certain concepts. I am not aware of all my unconscious biases and failings of critical thinking, but at least religious ones are not among them.
Atheism is freedom. Atheism does not equal critical thinking, or tolerance, or a truly liberated mind. But atheism is an opportunity, an option, a potential blank slate. To me atheism means that on this Saganian speck of dust we inhabit I find my own destination and I walk my own road and all my accomplishments and all my failures are ultimately my own, no idol is my god and no lord is my shepherd.
And this is something I relish, something that makes all those traumas and abuses worth it.
His blog is here.
From the National Secular Society:
Council prayers: Local Government (Religious Etc. Observances) Bill
We would like to see local government meetings conducted in a manner equally welcoming to all attendees, regardless of their individual religious beliefs or lack of belief. We therefore argue that religious worship should play no part in the formal business of council meetings.
What’s the issue?
The Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill seeks to make provision for the inclusion of prayers or “other religious observance” or “observance connected with a religious or philosophical belief” at local authority meetings.
The Private Member’s Bill, sponsored by Conservative MP Jake Berry, seeks to negate a High Court ruling  that “The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a Council is not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue.”
The judgement followed a Judicial Review initiated by the National Secular Society to challenge the practice of saying prayers as part of the formal business of council meetings in Bideford Town Council (Devon).
The ruling was an important step in recognition of secularism as a basis for equality in public life and public office. Simply, it ensured that all elected councillors, whatever their religious beliefs, would be treated with equal respect at council meetings.
If the Local Government (Religious Etc. Observances) Bill were to become law, it would enable a majority of councillors to impose their beliefs on other elected councillors who do not wish to participate. As well as those of no belief, this would of course include those of another faith to those of the prayer being recited.
Furthermore, for local democracy to be representative, we think it is important for local councils to resist practices that deter full involvement from all sections of the community they serve.
Why worship should play no part in local authority meetings
Given that the role of local councils is to represent and serve all people in their area equally, it is inappropriate for them to appear corporately to subscribe to any religious beliefs, far less to one faith in particular.
The imposition of prayer gives the impression of the body identifying with a particular belief or range of beliefs. This can alienate those who do not wish to pray, or make them feel they are not full or legitimate councillors. It may also deter prospective councillors/candidates.
Mr Justice Ouseley, the Judge in Charge of the Administrative Court at the High Court, stated in his ruling that the 1972 Local Government Act did not give councils the power to introduce a religious dimension to their meetings:
“I do not think that the 1972 Act, dealing with the organisation, management and decision-making of local Councils, should be interpreted as permitting the religious views of one group of Councillors, however sincere or large in number, to exclude or, even to a modest extent, to impose burdens on or even to mark out those who do not share their views and do not wish to participate in their expression of them. They are all equally elected Councillors.”
The Local Government (Religious Etc. Observances) Bill would overturn this ruling, in order to allow one group of councillors to impose their religious practices on other elected councillors.
In our view, permitting acts of worship to be imposed on councillors in a secular council chamber, as the Bill seeks do, is incompatible with religious freedom and inimical to ensuring our local councils are equally welcoming to all sections of society.
Local authorities have a statutory duty to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not
Within each local authority area there will be a diverse range of religious beliefs. If enacted, this legislation can be expected to increase the incidence of religious observance (predominantly, but not exclusively, Christian prayer) during formal council proceedings, potentially generating unnecessary sectarian conflict.
We note that the average age of councillors increased from 55 in 1997 to 60 in 2010 and only 4 per cent came from an ethnic minority background. It is important to make local democracy as open and inclusive as possible. The presence of predominantly Christian prayers may be seen as alienating for some who are not Christian. This is equally true for non-believers forced to sit through Christian prayers, as (for example) Christian councillors forced to sit through Islamic ones.
The supporters of this Bill claim it increases ‘religious freedom’. We think the opposite is true. The Bill undermines religious freedom by enabling the majority of councillors to impose their beliefs on other councillors. Secularism is a necessary adjunct to any democracy that supports equality for all.
The absence of prayers from the formal business of local authority meetings does not impede the religious freedoms of believers or deny anybody the right to pray. The current legal position simply prevents local authorities from summoning councillors to religious observance at council meetings and imposing it on those that do not wish it.
It is important to note that religious freedom is not just for believers. It also includes non-believers. Religious freedom protects both “freedom of religion or belief.” This protects an individual’s rights to manifest their religion, but does not extend to allowing believers to impose acts of worship on those that do not share their faith. This may also be regarded as basic good manners. Secularism does not seek to interfere with believers following their faith in any way, provided that it does not impinge adversely on others.
Councillors are free to meet and pray before their meetings, but formal acts of worship should not take place as part of the official business of local authority meetings. In this way, meetings can be conducted without anyone feeling compelled to participate in prayers, or feeling excluded, or that they have to absent themselves from any part of the meeting.
Separating acts of worship from the formal business of council meetings creates a neutral space and removes an unnecessary barrier to local democracy being equally representative of all sections of society.
Acts of worship can alienate councillors who simply do not wish to participate in public religious activity. This was the experience of the late Clive Bone, a councillor who assisted the NSS in our High Court challenge of the inclusion of prayers before meetings of Bideford Town Council by being a party to the case. Cllr Bone felt uncomfortable in refusing to participate, and said the worship created an unwelcoming atmosphere for non-religious councillors, and that he was aware of it putting off potential councillors from standing.
This was also the case for Cllr Imran Khan, a Muslim and Conservative councillor on Reigate and Banstead Borough Council in Surrey, who asked for Christian prayers to be separated from full council meeting as he felt it was wrong that he was forced to stand outside the council chamber while prayers were being said. After speaking out on the issue, Mr Khan was not reselected by the Tories to contest the seat and claimed the prayer row had “a big influence”.
Before the High Court ruling in 2012, a number of local authorities introduced multi-faith prayers. Such initiatives, though often well-meaning, became cause of tension, rather than cohesion.
When Portsmouth Council allowed for a Muslim Imam to say a prayer during a meeting, a local councillor was accused of “disrespect” after excluding himself from the meeting while the prayer was said. The councillor told local media: “I don’t feel it’s appropriate for Muslim prayers to be said, as I don’t feel we worship the same God as Muslims, so I left.”
Similarly, councillors in Shropshire called a fellow non-religious councillor “disgusting” after he wore headphones during a prayer held during a council meeting.
If successful, this new legislation could re-open the door to such unnecessary conflict and sectarianism at council meetings.
Community cohesion is best served by local authorities moving away from divisive practices, such as religious worship, that deter full involvement from all sections of communities they serve.
In a religiously diverse nation, where large sectors of the population do not hold or practise religious beliefs, local authorities should perform their civic duties in a secular manner without privileging or identifying with any particular religious position.
Using the arguments set out in the briefing, please contact your MP and ask them to ensure local democracy is inclusive and secular by opposing Jake Berry’s Local Government (Religious Etc. Observances) Bill.
Web: secularism.org.uk email: firstname.lastname@example.org Tel: 0207 404 3126