- Most Read
- Recent Comments
- Op-eds
Author Archives: Joe Otten
The 12 Op-Eds of Xmas (Day 8)
Throughout the festive season, LDV is offering our readers a load of repeats another chance to read the 12 most popular opinion articles which appeared on the blog during 2008. Eighth up is this posting by Joe Otten, which appeared on LDV on 10th March…
The issue is not faith schools but freedom of conscience
Conference: Liberal Vision and the Free Society
Tuesday lunchtime in Old Harry’s Bar was packed to the rafters with delegates promised something better than food: a list. Don’t we just love lists? Not this time the 10 most influential fluffy bloggers, but a ranking of how liberal the 63 Liberal Democrat MPs are on the basis of Parliamentary votes and Early Day Motion (EDM) support, on issues relating to personal liberty – i.e. drinking and smoking, rather than tax and CCTV. Nobody really believes the methodology behind the list to be sound, but, hey, it’s just a bit of fun, isn’t it?
I was quite pleased to observe …
Conference: Democracy’s Dragon’s Den
The Electoral Reform Society, in association with Lib Dem Voice, hosted a conference fringe asking party members to suggest big ideas to improve democracy in this country. Joe Otten reports back…
Ideas to revitalise democracy usually revolve around wearing baseball caps backwards to appeal to the ‘youth’ – that shallow monolithic mass of humanity that doesn’t, apparently, have the same diversity of values and beliefs of the rest of us.
I submitted a dull-but-worthy suggestion to the Den about improving the standard of public debate on scientific issues by publishing scientific advice to ministers. Obviously this wasn’t going to go …
Opinion: The issue is not faith schools but freedom of conscience
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.
Legal Aid debate
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 …
