Opinion: The issue is not faith schools but freedom of conscience

Written by Joe Otten on 10th March 2008 – 7:45 am

There has been a lot of comment on Lib Dem blogs lately attacking the faith school system and religion in education. I want to use this opinion piece to offer a different and more liberal perspective on secularism. Secularism to me means that the state has no business deciding on matters of religious truth, and no business telling parents what faith, if any, they ought to bring their children up in.

While I am no believer myself, what matters to me in politics is whether somebody shares tolerant liberal values, whether they are in favour of a critical and questioning approach to problems or simple obedience to authority. It may seem too obvious to be worth saying, but there are religious people and atheists on both sides of that question.

So I would like to see us adopting a policy towards religion in education that has three characteristics:

1. The state does not decide for parents how they should raise their children.

2. We should not attack schools that are well run and have good results. It is my view that in the case of successful faith schools, this is largely due to selection. But then why should a selective faith school be treated differently to a selective community school? And is it not safe to assume that faith schools take a uniformly less broad and less tolerant view of faith than non-faith schools.

3. There should be choice within schools. We have to admit that for all the talk and good will in the world, there is very little choice of school for many people. It should therefore not be assumed that a choice of school represents an endorsement of a school’s faith identity (or lack thereof).

Faith is not just an issue for faith schools. Community schools are also required, in nearly all cases, to assume that their pupils are broadly Christian and are not permitted - in the rules for seeking a “determination” from the SACRE - to canvass for the actual religious views of children or parents.

Let me repeat that.

Schools are not permitted to find out what faith allegiances parents and children actually have. This is illiberalism of the absurdest degree. So rather than focussing - as the faith schools debate usually does - on who runs schools, I wish to focus on the rights of parents and pupils to equality within the system whether they are Christian or not.

Read more »


Posted in Op-eds | 186 Comments »

Legal Aid debate

Written by Joe Otten on 8th March 2008 – 2:01 pm

You cannot have democracy, civil rights and a rule of law without access to justice, and you can’t have access to justice without Legal Aid. So said speaker after speaker in interesting waistcoats. And they are right of course. There is no access to justice for millions in this country, and the move to fixed fees will decrease it further by driving more legal aid practises out of business.

As much as this is all true, I found I had more sympathy for the lone dissenting voice of Elizabeth Dukes. Why is it that Legal Aid costs £34 per person in this country and only £4 per person in Germany and £1 in Sweden? Is Napoleonic justice cheaper? Is an ‘accusatorial’ system intrinsically more expensive? Or is there less casual criminality by landlords and local authorities in these countries? I think we should be told. Yet none of the other speakers addressed this.

The fact is that a vast swathe of the population is excluded from civil justice, being above benefit levels, and not rich. The cost of extending civil legal aid this far is not even funny. What we need are cheaper and more accessible kinds of justice - tribunals for tenancy disputes and the like, rather than insisting on gold plated procedures and then scraping all the gold off to be melted down and sold.

It is diffcult to demand cheap and cheerful justice without images of firing squads. And I wouldn’t want swathes of law subcontracted to the sharia courts. But nor do I want a policy on legal aid that has clearly been written from the perspective of the lawyers, with an eye on their current customer base.

In moving, Bridget Fox told the joke: What is the difference between a lawyer and God? God knows he’s not a lawyer. Yes, I believe you are human beings really, and that legal aid practises are going out of business, and this is wrong, and we should defend what access there is. But let’s, please, look at the bigger picture.

* Sheffield blogger Joe Otten kindly agreed to help cover policy debates at conference for Lib Dem Voice


Posted in Conference | 2 Comments »
RSS

Liberal Democrat Voice is an independent, collaborative website run by Liberal Democrat activists, where any individual inside or outside the party can express their views. Views expressed on this website are those of the individuals who express them and may not reflect those of the party.