East London Humanists

Opinion piece Romford Recorder and Ilford Recorder December 2024

It’s been a dismal year for peace, the planet, and much else besides. But the festive season is a time to celebrate. So please forgive some self-indulgence as I wax lyrical about the phenomenon that is Parkrun. For me it is a metaphor for so much that is good about life, and about people.

I last wrote about Parkrun in 2018 after completing my 250^th run. Covid played havoc with progress, but this Christmas I will complete my 500^th. Importantly, for me at any rate, I also win the chance to wear the special milestone shirt!

The first Parkrun was held in Bushey Park, West London, on 2 October 2004. 13 runners took part. Its roaring success was recorded in the headlines this October marking the 20^th anniversary. There are now over 10 million runners registered. There are hundreds of Parkruns, and they are in over two dozen countries.  East London is well-served. There is a lovely run at Raphael Park, in Romford, and another at Harrow Lodge in Hornchurch.

There are many things that make Parkrun special, and so popular. It is one of the most inclusive forms of communal activity. It costs nothing. It is run entirely by volunteers.  No special equipment is needed. Everyone is made to feel welcome. You just turn up.  It is possibly the only organised ‘sport’ which rejoices in declining average results, as these demonstrate increasing participation by less able people. The course can be walked or run as fast or as slow as you like. It’s not a race. Many courses are wheelchair friendly. Anyone with impaired vision can be led around.

The inclusivity draws a diverse crowd each Saturday morning. Young and old, of various colours, shapes and sizes, from all faiths and none, all out in nature connecting with each other through a common purpose.

Christmas is of course also a time to think of those less fortunate. But phenomena like Parkrun give hope in a depressing world. An example of human nature at its best, celebrating kinship, working in harmony rather than competing, sharing a zest for life with friends, family and complete strangers. For me, as someone who is not religious, this too is the spirit of Christmas.

The big question now is whether I will make it to my 1000 run shirt!

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson East London Humanists

Opinion piece East London Advertiser 21 November 2024

An Australian relative recently told me how grateful a close friend had been for assisted dying laws. They operate in most Australian states. The story is a powerful counter to those who want to deny this right here.

His friend was riddled with terminal cancer. Australia’s palliative care provision is good. But even the best care could not make her pain bearable. Robust procedures were followed.  An approved ‘death doula’ was on hand with medication she had requested. This had been prescribed to induce sleep and a pain-free death. She was of sound mind throughout.  Unwilling to face another night of torment, she requested and took the drugs herself. She died peacefully in her own home at a time she chose with her nearest and dearest by her side.

It came as a bombshell when Stepney born MP Wes Streeting, now Secretary of State for Health, did a U turn and said he will vote against reform. He represents one of the most religiously conservative constituencies in the country, which he won by a narrow margin, and is a staunch Christian.  But he cites poor palliative care in the UK as his key reason for changing his mind.   Opposing assisted dying on this ground doesn’t withstand rational scrutiny.

There is no evidence that denying the right to choose will lead to an improvement in palliative care. There is no evidence that passing a law on assisted dying has adversely affected the provision of palliative care in any of the countries which have done so. If anything, the opposite is true. Critically, as the above story shows, even the best palliative care cannot relieve the pain suffered by every terminally ill patient. In those cases, lack of provision is a non-existent, irrelevant factor. Using it as a reason for denying the right to choose simply leads to protracting unbearable pain, and a horrific death.  We wouldn’t treat animals like that.

Another big objection to reform is risk of coercion. The Bill details stringent safeguards which answer these concerns.

No safeguards or provision will ever persuade some people that the terminally ill should have a choice on assisted dying. They are a minority. Opinion polls show a large majority, including of the religious and the disabled, want the right to choose. It is unreasonable for that minority to stand in our way.

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson East London Humanists

Opinion piece published Ilford Recorder and Newham Recorder November 2024

An Australian relative recently told me over dinner how a close friend had benefitted from assisted dying laws which now operate in most Australian states. The story is a powerful counter to those who want to deny this right here.

His friend was riddled with terminal cancer. Even the best palliative care could not make her pain bearable. Robust procedures were followed.  An officially approved ‘death doula’ was on hand with drugs prescribed to bring on sleep and a pain-free death. Unwilling to face another night of torment, she requested and took them. She died peacefully in her own home at a time she chose and with her nearest and dearest by her side.

As a vote in our Parliament looms, big names in the religious hierarchy have cautioned against reform. Cardinal Nichols, the UK’s most senior Catholic, asserted that ‘life is a gift from our Creator.’  Senior figures in the Islamic community express similar objections. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who no doubt shares this view, has instead focussed on the risk of coercion. He calls legalisation ‘dangerous.’

Some disability activists also warn that they are especially vulnerable to pressure and being told they are ‘better off dead.’ Such concerns should be front and centre of any debate. And they can be addressed. There is nothing novel about making critical decisions around safeguarding the vulnerable. For example courts have long had to determine whether Powers of Attorney have been made through undue influence, or whether to turn off life support machines.

Dr Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, recently expressed support for assisted dying as an act of compassion in tune with his religious values. He pointed out (Daily Express 16.10.24) that his view is supported by most churchgoers. This is borne out by the largest poll ever on assisted dying, published in March by campaigning organisation Dignity in Dying. It showed two thirds of respondents with faith supported a change in the law, as did 78% of disabled respondents, and an overwhelming majority of the public at large.

Some religious fundamentalists and campaigners will always oppose assisted dying, whatever the safeguards. It is cruel and unreasonable for them to insist others like my Australian example must endure excruciating, unrelievable pain because of their beliefs.

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson East London Humanists

Opinion piece published East London Advertiser and Barking & Dagenham Post October 2024

Constitutional reform isn’t the sexiest of subjects. But three facts about the House of Lords might grab your attention.

First, it has over 800 members, more than any other second chamber apart from China, whose population is 20 times higher than ours. This is also the only country with a second chamber larger than the lower linked chamber. Last, but not least, this is one of only two countries where clergymen are automatically entitled to sit in the second chamber and decide on our laws. The other is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Labour’s manifesto included a pledge to modernise the Lords, starting with the abolition of hereditary peerage, which it described as ‘indefensible.’ A Bill was placed before Parliament last month to deliver this. Humanists say the privileged role of Bishops is just as indefensible, and for similar reasons.

During a separate debate in September (concerned with prioritising female Bishops) Lord Birt, a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, described the automatic right of 26 bishops to sit in the Lords as a ‘feudal legacy, embedded centuries before the notion of democracy gathered pace.’ He went on to praise the expertise, perspective, experience and goodness of leaders he had met from many faiths. He said he would hope and expect to see faith leaders of every kind represented in a reformed house but, crucially, ‘appointed on individual merit.’

The Bishop of Chelmsford, whose diocese includes East London, is a good example of the qualities described by Lord Birt.  Faith leaders of her calibre should have the opportunity to sit in the House of Lords. But the Church of England is just one of several Christian denominations, and Christianity is just one of many faiths and non-religious beliefs in modern Britain.

Some might say this fuss is overblown. They should reflect on how they would react if, say, I was automatically given a peerage simply because of my role in the local Humanist group! After all, around half the population now have no religion, and many share a Humanist outlook.

It is about time that every individual who enjoys the privilege and power that comes with being a member of the Lords is chosen both on merit and to reflect Britain’s diversity.

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson, East London Humanists

Opinion piece published Barking & Dagenham Post, Ilford Recorder and Docklands & East London Advertiser September 2024.

Parents, pupils and teachers are gearing up for the new school year.  So too are volunteer Humanist school speakers like me. Visits are on the up now that Humanism features on the Barking and Dagenham agreed Religious Education syllabus. It would be great if every school recognised the benefits of this free service.

Children generally find our views fascinating, even if they don’t agree with them. Talks, assemblies and Q&A’s encourage their curiosity about different perspectives on the so-called ‘Big Questions,’ such as how the world began, what’s the purpose of life, if any, and what happens when we die.

One of the biggest questions is ‘How do we decide what is true?’  Its importance was spotlighted by the spate of misinformation on social media which helped sparked the recent riots.

Of course, there is nothing novel about having multiple information streams with different views and facts to choose from. I grew up in the last century. Like many, my understanding was informed by printed material, TV, radio and what I heard from my family and community. The telephone was used only to speak to other people. It sat on a table with an annoying wire that got tangled up. I wonder how many children born this century have even used one.

What we now call mobile phones are something else altogether. For many young people, talking is the last thing they do on them.  Adults clearly find it hard enough to distinguish truth from untruth online. How on earth can we help children navigate the torrent of stuff they access through their phones, often for hours a day, on top of all the other sources. Its barely regulated, and often one-sided or deliberately misleading.

There is no easy answer. But a helpful start is to inculcate children with the importance of questioning and looking for evidence which can be weighed up and tested, and assessing the reliability of sources – the ‘scientific method’ which underpins a humanist world view.

Humanists UK school speakers are accredited and have a strict code of conduct. Its about explaining what we believe, not proselytising or knocking other beliefs.  Around half the population of this country have no religious belief. It is fundamental to a rounded education that children with or without a faith understand the principles and the validity of our ethical non-religious outlook.

Paul Kaufman. Chairperson East London Humanists

Its official. The UK has elected the most openly non-religious House of Commons in history.

Roughly 40% of MPs chose to take the secular affirmation instead of a religious oath during their swearing-in ceremony last week. That’s up from 24% after the 2019 election. They include the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, half the Cabinet and all four Green MPs.

Humanists welcome the House more closely reflecting the faith profile of the UK.  According to the British Social Attitudes Survey (2021) over half the population have no religion. We have come a long way since the election of the first openly atheist MP, Charles Bradlaugh, in 1880. His refusal to take the religious oath led to his arrest and imprisonment. He only finally took his seat in 1888 following a change in the law.

Starmer is the seventh non-religious Prime Minister, so far as we can tell. The first was a Liberal, Lloyd George. Ramsay Macdonald (Labour) was the first PM to take the non-religious oath – exactly 100 years ago in 1924. He was active in the Union of Ethical Societies, the forerunner of Humanists UK. Next were two Conservatives, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. The latter, an agnostic, regarded religion as superstition. When contemplating death, he told his doctor he ‘did not believe in another world, only black velvet– eternal sleep.’ 

Following WWII PM Clement Atlee (Labour) put his humanism into practice, establishing the NHS alongside other sweeping reforms.  James Callaghan is believed to have abandoned his Baptist faith. He was PM from 1976-79, over 50 years before Starmer.

Labour pledged in their manifesto to modernise parliament. The pointless relic of different oaths for different religions and beliefs is itself ripe for reform. This matters. A 2023 academic study showed that jurors who took a religious oath were more likely to convict a suspect who took a non-religious oath. Humanists will be pressing the new ministers in the Ministry of Justice to act on this. Having just one oath puts everyone on an equal footing.

Another archaism is the right of Christian MPs to book a seat ahead of debates using their prayer card. This systematically discriminates against non-religious MPs in a commons chamber without enough seats to go round. Just a couple of examples of change needed to make institutions and practices across the board fit for a modern, plural democracy. 

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson, East London Humanists

The upcoming election raises new prospects for social reform. Humanists are keen to work with whoever comes to power to achieve progress.

The scope for change is illustrated by the remarkable number of draft Bills actively supported by Humanists UK at the time the election was announced. Unfortunately, four sets of reform fell by the wayside following the announcement. All had a reasonable chance of success. One would have de-criminalised abortion and replaced the Victorian era penal approach with a civil framework. This against a backdrop of efforts by the anti-choice movement, often funded by US evangelicals, to turn the clock back. Another reform, thwarted when the same Bill fell, would have banned the discredited and harmful practice of conversion therapy.

The Children not in School Bill also fell. This Private Member’s bill was supported by the Government. It aimed to address the estimated 6000 children enrolled at illegal schools, many run by religious fundamentalists.  Finally, the private member’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) Bill was abandoned. It too was supported by the Government. It would have established a Special Envoy on FoRB dedicated to promoting freedom of religion or belief worldwide and raising awareness of persecution based on, for example, blasphemy laws.

One success, passed following the election announcement, was The Media Act, which repealed requirements for public service broadcasters to include religious programming. This coincided, incidentally, with the latest census data released in May which shows that in Scotland those ticking the ‘no religion’ box rose from 36% in 2011 to 51% in 2022. The Act’s impact will be monitored to ensure that humanism now receives a fair level of coverage.

This is just a snapshot. There are many other areas on which Humanists UK will continue to press for reform, including compulsory Christian worship in state schools, discriminatory admission and employment practices by religious schools, the law on assisted dying, and the legalisation of humanist weddings. When Parliament dissolved the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group comprised over 100 members across the party spectrum in both Houses. We look forward to seeing what the new influx of MPs will bring. One way or another, Humanists will continue to work to ensure this country’s institutions and laws befit a modern, diverse society, and for a fairer, kinder, more tolerant world.

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson, East London Humanists

Mainstream party leaders speak admirably about the importance of social harmony. But some have a blind spot when it comes to the crucial question of children’s education. The latest Government proposal to allow 100% religious discrimination in all state schools will increase religious and racial division at a time when integration and cohesion have never been more important.

Humanists UK has condemned the move, alongside religious leaders, parliamentarians, and leading educationalists.  In the House of Lords (7 May) former Conservative Education Secretary Lord Baker called it ‘an absurd proposal that should not feature anywhere in the manifesto of the Conservative party’. Lord Storey, Liberal Democrat education spokesperson asked ’Does the minister not think it important that in all our schools we should have children of different faiths?’

Former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, the co-leaders of the Green Party, the Chief Officer of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, Liz Slade, former government integration and community cohesion tsar, and many other prominent public figures are signatories to a letter organised by Humanists UK addressed to the Education Secretary. It urges against removal of the so-called ‘50% cap,’ pointing out that ‘Removing the restriction on state-funded faith schools to cherry pick students by religion would be a backwards step that risks increasing division and inequality, further entrenching religious selection in our education system, and undermining the principle of inclusivity.

England & Wales is already an outlier. Only 4 of the 36 OECD countries allow state schools to discriminate on religious grounds. The others are Estonia, Ireland (where attempts are being made to phase it out), and Israel.

The 50% cap, introduced by Labour in 2007, is a compromise. Ideally there would be no religious discrimination at all. Evidence shows it goes hand in hand with racial segregation, economic segregation, and disadvantaging of disabled and care-experienced children. All major players in education and think tanks are aware of this, and it is notable that the cap was retained by the coalition Government in 2010. This proposed lurch backwards comes only after lobbying by the Catholic church. The proposals are out for public consultation and should be strenuously opposed by everyone who values children of different faiths and beliefs learning and playing together and its importance to social cohesion. 

Paul Kaufman, Chairperson, East London Humanists

The ‘prayer ban’ at Michaela Community School in Brent has hit the headlines again following the recent High Court judgement. The controversy highlights the pressing need to reform our archaic laws on religious worship for state-educated children.

Michaela school was taken to Court in January by a Muslim pupil. She argued that its ban on prayer rituals was a ‘breach of her right to freedom to manifest her religious beliefs.’ This was rejected in the ruling on 16 April on the grounds that the pupil had ‘…chosen the School knowing of its strict regime; on the evidence she was able to move to a suitable school which would allow her to pray at lunchtime; and, in any event, she was able to perform Qada prayers in order to mitigate the fact that she was not able to pray at the allotted time.’

The judge further ruled that the disadvantage to Muslim pupils at the school caused by its policy was outweighed by its aim of promoting the interests of the school community as a whole, including Muslim pupils.

Currently the only law which specifically governs religious practice in English state schools is the requirement for a daily act of Christian worship. Such a law is found nowhere else in the world. It has been condemned by the UN as a breach of the Rights of the Child. Calls for abolition have come from the National Governance Association, most teaching unions, and peers in a debate in the House of Lords in January.  In 2019 Humanists UK supported parents in Oxford in their successful High Court challenge to mandatory collective worship at their child’s school on human rights grounds. The Government needs to give serious thought to creating clear rules and guidance fit for today’s world. These would protect children’s freedom of religion or belief while making sure our education system is fair and inclusive to all. Mandatory collective worship should be replaced with an inclusive form of assembly that makes all pupils feel welcomed, while making reasonable accommodation for those who want to worship privately where it doesn’t infringe the rights of others. Otherwise, we will inevitably see more cases being brought and resentment continuing to build within our school system.

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson, East London Humanists

The recent report that the Gospel Oak to Barking Line is to be renamed the ‘Suffragette Line’ is great news.  Celebrating these heroines from East London helps put recent fatuous remarks by Home Secretary James Cleverly into perspective. Like his predecessors, who resisted the fight for women’s suffrage, he thinks there are just too many demonstrations.

Cleverly said pro-Palestine protesters have “made their point.” He questioned whether holding regular marches “adds value” to their calls for an immediate ceasefire given the UK government is in disagreement. (Times 28 Feb)

Cleverly did not attempt to make a case for stopping the national demonstrations due to any violence or threat to public order. All ten, held over five months, have been peaceful. The number of arrests proportionately has been less than for a typical Glastonbury Festival. He expresses concern instead about the cost.

 I have participated in several of these peace marches in a personal capacity as part of the substantial Jewish Bloc, which includes both religious Jews and secular ones like me. Jewish support for an immediate ceasefire has been shamefully underreported. The response from Muslim participants has invariably been warm and appreciative. Those like former Home Secretary Suella Braverman who smear them as hate marches have clearly not been on one.

The policing cost, estimated at £25million so far, is a small price to pay for exercising a basic democratic right. It is insignificant compared say to the estimated £240million spent so far on the flawed Rwanda scheme. The cost is probably more than is necessary. Any display of antisemitism is vile and should be dealt with. But the routes are saturated with CCTV cameras. Given the demonstrations have been peaceful, it is questionable whether the large number of police deployed on the ground are needed.

Freedom of speech and assembly are time-honoured democratic means for urging change in government policy. It is unreasonable that the Home Secretary should seek to diminish these rights and expect those calling for an immediate ceasefire to reduce their protests as the death and suffering mount. The suffragette movement was formed in 1903 because demure pleas for change had fallen on deaf ears for decades. It took many years of demonstrations before they won the vote for women. They were on the right side of history. Our Home Secretary is not. ENDS. Paul Kaufman, Chairperson, East London Humanists