England's Charity Commission Refuses To Register Jedi Order As A Religion

Last week, the Charity Commission for England and Wales rejected an application by the Temple of the Jedi Order (TOTJO)-- an organization whose doctrines are inspired by Star Wars-- to be entered onto the register of charities. (Full text of Commission's Dec. 16 ruling.) TOTJO claimed that its purpose is: "To advance the religion of Jediism, for the public benefit worldwide, in accordance with the Jedi Doctrine." The ruling says in part:

... [R]eligion in charity law is characterised by belief in one or more gods or spiritual or non-secular principles or things, and a relationship between the adherents of the religion and the gods, principles or things which is expressed by worship, reverence and adoration, veneration intercession or by some other religious rite or service. In addition, that it must be capable of providing moral and ethical value or edification to the public and characterised by a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

... The Commission has ... concluded that Jediism does not meet the characteristics of a religion for the purposes of charity law....

The Commission also rejected the argument that TOTJO should be listed as a charity under the promotion of moral or ethical improvement standard. The Guardian reports on the ruling.

U.S. and Britain Explore Definition of Anti-Semitism

On Dec. 1 the U.S. Senate passed by unanimous consent S.10, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016. (ADL press release with background information.) In the convoluted language of much federal legislation, the bill would have instructed the Department of Education to use the definition of Anti-Semitism developed by the State Department's Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism-- including examples in an accompanying Fact Sheet-- in enforcing Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VI prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance.

The basic definition of Anti-Semitism incorporated by the bill is:

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Beyond this, though, the accompanying Fact Sheet includes in the definition of Anti-Semitism criticism of Israel which demonizes Israel, applies a double standard not demanded of any other democratic nation, or denies Israel's right to exist.  As reported last week by The Forward, S.10 has died in the House of Representatives as critics raised concerns that the bill could threaten federal funding at universities where speakers criticize Israel without a push back from college administrators.

Meanwhile yesterday Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May announced that Britain will formally adopt the definition of anti-Semitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance-- the same definition as the basic statement incorporated in S.10.  This comes after the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in October published a report on Antisemitism in the UK, and the Government this month published a Response to Home Affairs Committee Report. The Government's Response discusses at some length the question of whether or when criticism of Israel should be classified as Anti-Semitism.

Britain Releases Report On Integration of Ethnic Communities

Britain's Department for Communities and Local Government yesterday released a report (full text) (Executive Summary) by Dame Louise Casey on integration and opportunity in isolated and deprived communities. It examines immigration and settlement patterns. As reported by BBC News, the report gives attention to the rapid increase in Britain's Muslim population which stands at 2.8 million-- a 72% increase from 2001 to 2011.  In its section on religion, the report says in part:

We remain an officially Christian country with our Head of State, Her Majesty the Queen, also Supreme Governor of the established Church in England, while at the 2011 Census, 59% of us described ourselves as Christian. But that figure had fallen significantly from 72% a decade earlier. And the Church of England has seen a steady decline in church attendance over the last half century, with the proportion of the population attending Sunday services now only one third of that in the 1960s.

At the same time there has been a shift away from mainstream Christian denominations and a growth in evangelical and Pentecostal churches, largely reflecting changes in ethnic diversity.

There has also been an increase in the variety of faiths being practiced. Fifty years ago, Judaism – at less than 1% of the population – was the largest non-Christian faith in the UK. Now it is the fourth largest non-Christian faith with 269,000 people identifying as Jewish in the 2011 Census behind Islam (2.8 million people), Hinduism (833,000), and Sikhism (432,000).

British Plastic Banknotes Raise Problems For Vegans

In Britain, vegans and vegetarians are protesting the country's new currency.  According to The Independent yesterday, the new £5 notes printed on polymer rather than paper contain animal fat. A spokesperson for the Bank of England said of the new banknotes:

We can confirm that the polymer pellet from which the base substrate is made contains a trace of a substance known as tallow. Tallow is derived from animal fats (suet) and is a substance that is also widely used in the manufacture of candles and soap.

Further details about production were not released, but depending on the kind of animal fat used the bills could also create problems for certain religious groups.

British Court Rejects Challenge To Jewish Cemetery's Refusal To Allow Exhumation

In Britain this week, a High Court judge has denied an application for leave to obtain judicial review of a decision by a Jewish cemetery that refused to allow a man's body to be exhumed for reburial in Israel.  According to the Jewish Chronicle, the case involves the late Joseph Charazi who was buried in a Jewish cemetery in Hertfordshire in 1993. Charazi was born in Israel and his wife Anne claims his dying wish was to be buried back there. However in 1993 his widow could not afford to send his body that distance. In 2011, his widow herself moved to Israel and now wants to carry out Charazi's wishes even though 4 of Charzi's children oppose the move.  Adath Yisroel Burial Society that administers the cemetery followed a ruling of the rabbinate that the body should not be exhumed.  The court held that a decision of a religious body in a matter of a religious nature is generally not amenable to judicial review.

British Court Says Sex Segregated Religious Schools OK Under Equality Act

In Interim Executive Board of X School v Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services And Skills, (EWHC (Admin), Nov. 8. 2016), a British trial court held that sex-segregated classes from the 5th grade on in an Islamic school do not violate the Equality Act 2010. In reaching its conclusion, the court distinguished U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education. The High Court judge said in part:

The essence of her case is that "making separate but equal provisions for boys and girls (or blacks and whites, or heterosexuals and lesbians and gay men etc.) cannot be divorced from the historic and current societal treatment of the less powerful group." Put another way, but to the same effect, segregation has the tendency to promote social and cultural stereotypes about the role of women in society....

Insofar as segregation on the ground of sex is practised in mixed schools in the UK, it is a practice carried out by a minority of schools with a Jewish, Christian and Islamic ethos, with the full participation of parents.

In short, segregation in mixed schools in this country is not the practice of government; it cannot be envisaged as any reflection of the mores and attitudes of wider society; it is only capable of being seen as a reflection of the mores, attitudes, cultures and practices of the faith groups who have been permitted to do it.

Law & Religion UK has more on the case.

British Court Rejects Imam's Defamation Claim Against BBC

In Begg v. British Broadcasting Corp., (EWHC, Oct. 28, 2016), a British trial court dismissed a defamation claim brought against the BBC by the chief imam of a London mosque.  The claimant,  Shakeel Begg, sued over a description of him included in a BBC current affairs television program. The court concluded however that:

the words complained of ... are substantially true in their meanings: (1) The Claimant is an extremist Islamic speaker who espouses extremist Islamic positions. (2) The Claimant had recently promoted and encouraged religious violence by telling Muslims that violence in support of Islam would constitute a man’s greatest deed.

In an interesting portion of its analysis, the court said:

I turn to consider what is properly to be considered “extreme” in the context of Islam and Islamic doctrinal positions. It is necessary to do so in order to determine that the BBC’s plea of justification for the [words complained of] is made out, viz. “The Claimant is an extremist Islamic speaker who espouses extremist Islamic positions”. The various speeches and posts relied upon by the BBC were given by the Claimant on Islamic issues in his capacity as an Imam and directed to predominantly Muslim audiences. The analysis of what is “extreme” and what are “extremist Islamic positions” is, therefore, necessarily to be judged initially through the prism of Islam.

Then the court (beginning in paragraph 118) sets out ten teachings or beliefs that meet the definition of Islamic extremism. Out-Law.com reporting on the decision notes that this is one of the last cases based on laws that preceded the 2013 Defamation Act.  That Act changed the defense of "justification" to the defense of "truth".

British Report On Islamist Extremism In Prisons

On Monday, Britain's Ministry of Justice released a summary of the main findings of a classified report on Islamist extremism in British prisons. (Full text of Summary).  The study of the issue was commissioned last year and the classified report was presented in March. The study found that Islamist extremism is a growing problem in prisons.  The Summary's section on Muslim Chaplaincy in prisons reports in part:

Throughout the review the team emphasised the importance of faith to prisoners, and its potential to transform lives for the better. Its premise was that Islamism – a politicised, expansionist version of Islam – is more ideology than faith, and is driven by intolerance and anti-Western sentiment.

There are around 69 full time, 65 part-time and 110 sessional Muslim prison chaplains. About two thirds follow the Deobandi denomination, often regarded as a traditional and conservative interpretation.... 

The review concluded that while most chaplains were dedicated members of staff and did good and useful work, there is also evidence of a weak understanding and effective approach to IE.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.] 

Britain's Supreme Court Refers Complex Transgender Case To European Court of Justice

In MB v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (UK Sup. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), Britain's Supreme Court, divided on a complicated issue of transgender rights under European Council Directive 79/7/EEC (Progressive Implementation of the Principle of Equal Treatment for Men and Women in Matters of Social Security), referred the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union:

[W]hether Council Directive 79/7 EEC precludes the imposition in national law of a requirement that, in addition to satisfying the physical, social and psychological criteria for recognising a change of gender, a person who has changed gender must also be unmarried in order to qualify for a state retirement pension.

As permitted by the Directive, Britain allowed women to obtain a retirement pension at an earlier age than men.  However a transgender woman needed a full gender recognition certificate to qualify for the earlier pension, and under British law at the time could not obtain one if she remained married.  The facts of the case are summarized in the Court's press release:

So far as MB was concerned, she was registered at birth as a man but has lived as a woman since 1991 and underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1995. She has not applied for a full gender recognition certificate because she and her wife are married and wish to remain so.... On 31 May 2008, MB turned 60 [and] ... applied for a state retirement pension.... That application was rejected....

EurActiv reports on the decision.  [Thanks to Paul deMello for the lead.] 

Brexit Apparently Does Not Threaten Britain's European Human Rights Obligations

Reuters reports that in Britain, Interior Minister Theresa May will become the country's new Prime Minister tomorrow. She will be responsible for steering Britain's exit from the European Union.  She said yesterday  that there could be no second referendum and would be no attempt to rejoin the EU by the back door. According to a review by Law & Religion UK,  before the referendum May favored staying in the EU but withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights.  However on June 30 she said:

I’ve set my position on the ECHR out very clearly but I also recognise that this is an issue that divides people, and the reality is there will be no Parliamentary majority for pulling out of the ECHR, so that is something I’m not going to pursue.

British Tribunal: Deportation of Imam Does Not Violate Islamic Center's Religious Freedom

In Hamat v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (UK UT, June 6, 2016), Britain's Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) rejected a claim that the government is unlawfully interfering with the choice of a religious leader by the Afghanistan Islamic Cultural Centre by deporting its imam who was in the country illegally. Britain's Human Rights Act, Sec. 13, which implements provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides in part:

If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.

The Tribunal held:

Whilst the effect of the appellant's removal inevitably has the effect of depriving the AICC and its membership of the imam of their choice, this was not the motive of the respondent's actions.... [T]he decision had not interfered with the freedom of choice of the Afghan Muslim community because their actions have not been prompted by a wish to favour one imam over another. The personality of the appellant has not influenced the decision....

The Tribunal went on to hold that Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) would be violated only if the government's action would "make the free exercise of religion a practical impossibility." Here there are numerous options for the religious organization to recruit a replacement. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

British Court Rejects Challenge To Local Anti-Israel BDS Resolutions

In Britain today, a 2-judge panel of the England and Wales High Court rejected a challenge by a Jewish human rights group to anti-Israel resolutions passed by three local councils.  In Jewish Rights Watch (t/a Jewish Human Rights Watch), R (on the application of) v Leicester City Council, [2016] EWHC 1512 (Admin), June 28, 2016, petitioner challenged three resolutions: one by Leicester calling for a boycott of produce from Israeli West Bank settlements; one by Gwynedd calling for a trade embargo with Israel; and one by Swansea expressing concern that a company involved in building a light railway in Israel was also involved in contracts with Swansea. The court summarized Jewish Human Rights Watch's claims:

It is JHRW's case that the Councils singled out Israel for different treatment than that adopted in respect of other countries and, in particular, failed properly or sufficiently to consider the effect of the resolutions on the Jewish community. JHRW contends that the Councils failed to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and harassment of Jewish people, and the need to foster good relations between those who are Jewish and those who are not; and that in doing so they failed to have any regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty, set out in s.149 of the Equality Act 2010, and their legal duties as public authorities, as set out in s.17 of the Local Government Act 1988.

Section 149 of the Equality Act has been interpreted to require public bodies to give advance consideration to equality issues before making policy decisions.  Section 17 of the Local Government Act bars local governments from considering the country or territory of origin in making contract decisions. The court concluded, however, that qualifying language in, and/or the non-binding nature of, the Resolutions prevented them from being in violation of law:

First, the evidence from each of the Defendant Councils was that the resolutions did not bind the Councils to abide by or act upon them. Leicester, Gwynedd and Swansea each operated through an Executive (which developed and implemented policy); and procurement was a function of the Executive rather than the full Council.

The second point is that two of the resolutions contained qualifying words. In the case of Leicester, the boycott resolution was qualified by the words, 'insofar as legal considerations allow'. In the case of Swansea the exhortation to support the position of the UN in relation to the settlement of East Jerusalem was qualified by the words, 'so long as to do so would not be in breach of any relevant legislation.'

Jewish Chronicle reporting on the decision, quotes JHRW which says it will file an appeal. JHRW's statement reads in part:

The local councils, recognising that such boycotts would be unlawful, insisted that their motions were non-binding and not actually implemented, and that the resolutions were in fact never intended to influence policy. So this was never about investment at all. Instead, it was about councils being able to make offensive and misleading declarations that divide communities for cheap political gain and put Jews in the UK in jeopardy – and all at the ratepayer’s expense.

[Thanks to Paul de Mello, Jnr. for the lead.]

Top Religious Leaders React To Brexit

Several top religious leaders have issued statements reacting to Thursday's vote in Britain to exit from the European Union.  Here are links:

• Archbishops of Canterbury and York
• Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Catholic Archbishop of Westminster
• Britain's Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis
• Pope Francis

British Parliamentary Group Releases Report On Asylum Claims By Migrants Claiming Religious Persecution

In Britain, the All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief this week released a 35-page report titled Fleeing Persecution: Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom Grounds. Here is an  excerpt from the Executive Summary:

While the law is clear that religious persecution constitutes grounds for asylum, assessment of religion based asylum applications is complex and challenging due to the inherently internal and personal nature of religion and belief. This is compounded by the fact that persecution on the basis of religion or belief encompasses a wide range of human rights violations and relates to complex dynamics of communal identities, politics, conflicts and radical organisations....

... [T]here is a disparity between Home Office policy guidelines and what is actually happening in practice.... [W]hile it is clear that a lack of understanding of religion and belief is a primary cause of the disparity between good policy guidelines and practices of decision-makers within the UK asylum system, such ignorance might have been formalised through unpublished ‘crib sheets’ given to decision-makers.

Further evidence submitted by a number of stakeholders revealed that Christian and Christian convert asylum seekers are still being asked detailed factual “Bible trivia” questions which is too simplistic a way to judge if an individual is, for example, a genuine convert. Furthermore anecdotal evidence has shown that some people are learning as much as they can so they can be prepared for the Home Office interview.

In UK, Proposed Counter Extremism Bill Will Include Provisions Aimed At Unregistered Orthodox Jewish High Schools

The Independent reported Saturday that a Counter Extremism Bill being drafted by Britain's Home Office will contain new provisions aimed at unregistered Orthodox Jewish high schools which educate boys only in religious subjects.  Classes are taught in Yiddish. Former pupils have alleged that physical beatings are common and teachers often encourage students to enter arranged marriages at age 18.  Some students leave school unable to speak English. The schools serve the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community of north London.  Apparently Hackney Council officials have been aware of the schools for several years, but cooperated with religious schools to destroy records of students disappearing from the rolls of registered schools.  Britain's Department of Education says it is intensifying investigations into unregistered schools. The new focus by the government apparently stemmed from a report published in April by The Independent. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Britain's Home Office Launches Investigation Into Sharia Law

In Britain last week, Home Secretary Theresa May announced that her office has begun an independent investigation into the application of Sharia law in England and Wales.  The review will be chaired by Professor Mona Siddiqui, an internationally known expert in Islamic and inter-religious studies. Her panel of experts will be advised by two imams. According to the Department's May 26 press release:

The Home Secretary committed to an independent review of the application of Sharia Law as part of the government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy. The strategy notes that many people in England and Wales follow religious codes and practices, and benefit from the guidance they offer. However, there is evidence some Sharia councils may be working in a discriminatory and unacceptable way, seeking to legitimise forced marriage and issuing divorces that are unfair to women, contrary to the teachings of Islam. It will also seek out examples of best practice among Sharia councils.

British Judge Rules In Muslim Parents' Dispute Over Sons' Circumcisions

In Exeter (county Devon) in England, a family court judge has ruled that a Muslim father cannot have his 4 and 6 year old sons circumcised over the objection of the boys' mother who is now separated from the father.  As reported yesterday by The Plymouth Herald, the father, a devout Muslim living in England but who was born in Algeria, argued that circumcision would be in accordance with his religious beliefs and in the boys' best interests. The judge said that she is deferring any decision on ordering the circumcision until the boys are old enough to make mature choices on their own, and are able to appreciate the consequences and longer-term effects of their decisions.  However this does not mean that they must reach adulthood before making their decisions. The judge said in part:

First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure.  There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father, although that may very well be their choice.

Britain's 2014 Sovereign Sukuk Issuance Creates Unexpected Problem For House of Commons

In 2014, Britain in a bid to become the Western hub for Islamic finance, sold £200,000,000 in Sharia-compliant bonds-- otherwise known as sovereign Sukuk. (2014 press release) (Offering Circular).  Under the Sukuk arrangement, investors do not lend money in exchange for interest; instead they share in "rent" payments made by the government on government property which is first leased to the investors and then sub-leased back from them. One of the conditions of the arrangement is that the government property that underlies the Sukuk arrangement cannot be used in ways that violate Sharia law. This means, among other things, that no alcohol can be sold on the premises of the building.

It was reported by the Deccan Herald last week that this condition is now creating a problem for Parliament.  The 182-year old Palace of Westminster in London where the House of Commons now meets is in need of extensive repairs that it is estimated will take six years to complete. A Parliamentary committee is seeking a place for Commons to meet while the repairs are under way.  The Committee has identified Richmond House in the Whitehall district as a good fit.  The building currently houses UK's Department of Health. It is also one of the buildings that has been leased to support the 2014 Sukuk issuance. The Palace of Westminster currently has eight bars in it.  Members of Parliament will have to give up that convenience while in their temporary home.

UK's Department of Education Clarifies Religious Education Requirements

Britain's Department of Education yesterday issued a Guidance Note (full text) assuring schools that their Religious Education curriculum does not need to change in response to a court decision (see prior posting) last month holding that schools cannot completely exclude the study of non-religious beliefs. According to the Department, the decision does not mean that equal time must be given to teachings of humanism. Schools can continue to give precedence to the teachings of major faith groups, and the curriculum of non-religiously affiliated schools must "reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are, in the main, Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain."

Britain's Law Commission Studies Possible Reform of Marriage Laws

Yesterday Britain's Law Commission published a 97-page background paper that lays the groundwork for possible reform of the country's marriage laws.  The publication, Getting Married: A Scoping Paper, highlighted two key policy areas that need examination in any reform: (1) whether non-religious organizations or independent celebrants should be able to conduct marriage ceremonies; and (2) how far the rules for entering civil partnerships should mirror the rules for marriage. Law & Religion UK has more on the Law Commission's report.