In Defence of Secularism

Europe has largely thrown off the more negative aspects of religion, and must not apologise for having done so

A report this week released in America has criticised a host of European countries for pursuing what it sees as policies detrimental to religious expression. The Commission on International Religious Freedom slammed Europe’s ‘aggressive secularism’, citing laws regulating religious clothing, slaughter and circumcision.

No, you’ve read that correctly. America- a country widely known for its maturity towards faith and its equal treatment of religions- has attacked Europe, that great Godless hellhole, over its treatment of religion. Almost painfully contradictory, a comparable situation would be an obese person chastising an Olympic athlete for having seconds at Sunday dinner.

Aside from the obvious irony, there is a serious debate here to be had as to the existence of religious freedom in society, and the extent to which it should influence laws and public policy. And it is a debate which the United States constantly falls horribly on the wrong side of. Don’t forget: this is a country where some states effectively outlaw homosexual activity, abortion is still a contentious issue, and where some 40% inexplicably believe the world is less than 10,000 years old.

One aspect criticised by the Commission were the laws in France and Belgium which ban the wearing of the full Islamic veil – or the burqa – in a public place. This is a valid debate to be had, and one which is troubling for a liberal. On the one hand, the burka can be seen as a symbol of female repression, and emblematic of a religion which is has a tendency to be intolerant of women. On the other, it is undeniable that some Muslim women freely chose to wear the veil as a symbol of their faith, and see it as an important part of their religious expression.

However, while laws regarding the burqa are contestable, others most definitely are not. In this vein, the report also criticised the restrictions in some European countries on circumcision, which is practised by both Muslim and Jewish communities. Circumcision – or child genital mutilation – is one example of an area of public policy where secular and scientific concerns must prevail over lingering religious interests.

In mid-2012, a German court ruled that circumcising a child for religious reasons amounted to bodily harm. The court stressed that the right of a child to bodily integrity overruled the parent’s rights to carry out their religious beliefs. Sadly, the ruling (which, rather amusingly, briefly united Germany’s Jews and Muslims) was later invalidated by the German Parliament, who passed legislation rendering the practice explicitly legal. Today, the practise of this grotesque and archaic tradition continues in the country.

Criticism of anti-circumcision laws serve to highlight the niggling remnants of influence that religion still carries. Without religious faith, no-one would defend the deliberate mutilation of a child in its infancy, especially as the sole motivation for doing so is to diminish the sexual pleasure that child will experience in adulthood; but throw religion into the mix and all of a sudden logic and reason seem to baulk.

The truth is, whilst freedom of religious expression is undoubtedly an important right in a civilised country, it must never be used to trump rational thinking. Of all the regions in the world, almost nowhere is this understood and appreciated more than Western Europe. And the next time a Commission from America reports on religious freedom, they would do well to bear this in mind.

Why Labour must respond to UKIP

The rise of the hard-right party is an opportunity to be seized by the Left

By any measure, the past week has been a good one for UKIP. Across England, the party gained almost 150 councillors in local elections, taking councils out of majority Conservative control and averaging over 25% in areas where they stood. Even David Cameron, who once infamously called the party a mixture of “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”, had to humiliatingly backtrack in front of the cameras, admitting that it was “no good insulting a political party that people have chosen to vote for”.

Of course, there are many reasons why one may legitimately play down the significance of this vote. As good as UKIP’s results were, the turnout (predicted by the BBC at about 31%) was low even by the standards of a secondary election, and those that did vote would have been more likely to register a protest vote than at a general election. When added to the fact that, despite being in existence for almost 20 years, UKIP has yet to see one MP sitting at Westminster, it is not difficult to take some of the shine away from the party’s performance.

The Labour Party, too, had a strong showing at the ballot boxes, winning an additional 291 councillors, reclaiming control of both Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire from the Conservatives in the process and taking two mayoral elections in the North-East. The party can also allow itself a brief moment of joy insofar as UKIP largely succeeded in splitting the right-wing vote.

However, Labour cannot afford to become complacent. Whilst UKIP are currently happily stealing votes away from the Conservatives, there are also indications that Nigel Farage’s party will start to eat into the Labour vote in some areas. The reason? UKIP is the only party in the UK setting the agenda on immigration. Rightly or wrongly, large swathes of the public perceive immigration to be a key issue facing the country, and it is imperative that Labour engage in the debate.

Because, whilst not a party entirely comprised of loonies and fruitcakes, it is clear that many of UKIP’s policies represent a real threat to our modern, globalised country. Scratch under the surface and you will find that UKIP advocates a draconian five year freeze on all immigration, withdrawing from the vital Human Rights Convention and virulent opposition to equal marriage. Whereas some UKIP voters will undoubtedly agree with these policies, many will not. Yet, as long as the party continues to be the only one to lead discourse on immigration, people will feel no option but to vote for them.

This is why Labour must wrestle back the issue from UKIP. While the Conservatives fall into Farage’s trap of ever-hardening rhetoric against immigration, the Left must offer a fresh perspective on the issue. This does not mean merely talking about the numerous societal and cultural benefits that immigrants bring, but also challenging the apparent consensus that immigration is a ‘problem’.

Labour must counter the economically-illiterate assumption that more immigration equals more unemployment. It is understandable that people worry for their jobs in times of economic hardship, but stopping immigration will not help. Immigrants are consumers as well as producers, and more consumption can only be a good thing for an economy that is desperate for increased demand.

Labour must also counter the widely-reported fallacy that immigrants are both job stealers and benefit scroungers. Whilst the contradiction is obvious, figures on the Left must make their voices heard in challenging this inexplicably fatuous view whenever and wherever it occurs.

Thirdly, Labour must counter the view that we as a country could do perfectly well with greatly reduced immigration. Were it not for immigration, it is undeniable that the UK would suffer hugely from structural unemployment, and our national infrastructure like the NHS and our schools would be in dire straits.

To his credit, Ed Miliband recognises and understands this challenge. He has recently admitted that the previous government made mistakes on immigration, and has promised action by tackling employers who exploit foreign workers by paying far below the National Minimum Wage. However, more must be done. Labour must speak loudly, in unison, and move the debate on immigration away from the nonsensical and ineffective solutions proffered by those on the hard-right, to a debate about improving infrastructure, house building and employment protection.

The rise of UKIP should rightly be seen as a challenge to liberal, modern Britain. That Britain deserves a Labour Party which is prepared to tackle the issue head on and to fight dissenting voices on its own terms.