The Government’s White Paper, Communities in Control was published over the summer and the subject in part of Hazel Blears’ recent (and, er…, rather controversial) speech. As this extract shows, there’s plenty to chew over in the proposals, despite Hazel Blears’ diversion into swipes at a pair of bloggers:
Among the voluntary organisations we want to help in different ways to build stronger communities, there is a particular role for faith based groups. Britain has a strong tradition of faith-based organisations working to improve local communities. This reflects the importance placed on charitable acts, social action and civic duty in all religions practised in the UK. There are over 23,000 religious charities in the UK and many more faith-based organisations, involving tens of thousands of people motivated by their faith, working at a local and national level to provide support and services to communities. At times there has been reluctance on the part of local authorities and agencies to commission services from faith-based groups, in part because of some confusion about the propriety of doing so. Building on the Faithworks Charter, we intend to work with faith communities to clarify the issues and to remove the barriers to commissioning services from faith-based groups. [p.43]
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Blondie: Sunday Girl
Liz Saville Roberts to Give the David Lloyd George Memorial Lecture at Gwyl Cricieth Festival
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Roland
David Murray
Tristan Ward
Tony Ferguson
26 Comments
What’s so terrible about non-faith-based groups that they shouldn’t be involved, I wonder. There are tens of thousands of social enterprises and secular charities.
Does it have to be a faith in the existence of a god, or is faith in other things OK to qualify?
Tories want this too. Please, God, stop them.
Here is more evidence that there is no lenghts to which Labour wont go to win over the votes of minority commnunities
They seem not to gie a hoot about the divisie effects such moes have on communities.
CQ will not be the only one to ask why some groups need to be continually treated “differently” if not to curry political favours
Anon – the only way to stop them is for Liberal Democrats to insist that all communities be trated the same
1. My instinct is to be opposed to the commissioning of services from any sort of voluntary organisation if it is to fulfil a role that should be being undertaken by local or national government. That probably nails me as a stalinist, but I accept that there is a liberal case to be made for the involvement of the voluntary sector in the provision of welfare. The trajectory has been, though, that government has shifted more and more social provision onto the voluntary sector in order to allow tax cuts, the classic example being the provision of social housing which has been shifted wholesale from a community-based asset/liability to an effectively business-based provision via an interval of paid ‘voluntarism’.
2. If you do accept that there is a role for voluntary organisations over and above the filling of holes in the net of social provision then there should be a lot more clarity over what sort of structural entity we are prepared to accept making such provision. Is it enough to ensure that organisations are ‘not for profit’ when increasingly they are paying senior staff similar salaries to their equivalents in industry or local government (because that is what is necessary to attract people with the ability to do the job)? In this model, ‘voluntary’ provision is more or less an equivalent method of delivery to business and government, with the boundaries between the three being highly permeable in terms of personnel. I don’t see anything particularly liberal about it.
3. If we are to accept the commissioning of services from voluntary organisations I cannot see any argument for the emphasising of one type of organisation over another. However, there is a clear problem with ideologically based organisations: would any of us be happy with the public commissioning of a service from an organisation run by the Socialist Workers Party, or the BNP? But why should they be treated differently to a group based on a religious ideology? Surely the only test should be the competence of the group to deliver the service commissioned?
Over to Laurence!
And…here in a nutshell is the problem with resorting to voluntarism as alternative support where the state provides services etc etc, such things shouldnt make people hostages to special interest groups…voluntarism, if it is to be done right has to be focused of people self-activity….in short I wouldnt support the secular state ‘enabling’ this kind of thing…
Tony Hill
“Surely the only test should be the competence of the group to deliver the service commissioned?”
Absolutely. Let’s just spell this out a bit further. If an audit on a non-ideological group shows that competence is lacking, then it is simple to deal with it: Government can easily explain why they need to pass on the job to someone else. But if it is a faith group that proves to be incompetent, and Government tries to take the job away from them, there is bound to be a major row. So, Government may well decide to tolerate incompetence, rather than risk losing the votes of the faith group.
Remedy – as Tony says – Don’t get into this situation in the first place!
What we really need is much more inter-faith dialogue.
I think there is lots of inter faith dialogue, just not enough between those with faith and those in the Labour government who are opposed to faith – e.g. Catholic Adoption agencies which have been forced to renounce part of their faith or be driven out of their particular calling. As always government seems to have the attitude, “If I can find one principle you hold that makes you not perfect to me, I will ignore all your good points and undermine and destroy your entire contribution. Of course if you hold no principles, you’re fine.” Totally illiberal and counterproductive for our society .
Didn’t Labour’s equality bill force catholic adoption/fostering agencies to close because of the requirement to avoid discrimination?
Read
“These religious bods may have some strange ideas, but they’ll work for peanuts, so let’s get them to do it”
Catholic adoption agencies who would discriminate against same-sex couples would not be acting in the best interests of the child, and that is what makes them unfit to do the job. They may believe that a child is better off with heterosexual parents, but that is a religious principle, and not supported by research.
Although I’m uncomfortable with some faith-based charities, the anti-discrimination laws should make sure that any involvement in the public sector is providing roughly the same service that a secular organisation would. It just remains to ensure that they’re properly implemented.
The extent to which voluntary organisations ought to be delivering public services is a whole other story, but since it’s likely there’ll always be some involvement it’s good to have a solid set of rules to work with.
Charlotte,
I would say to that the experience with state-funded faith schools is that they simply ignore the rules and make their own as they go along yet still take money from the public purse..this whole idea should be a big no-no as far as secularists are concerned…
Darrell: true, the rules are no use unless they’re followed. Where they’re not, maybe it’s as Dave Allen said, fear of offending vocal minorities – which is counterproductive. Nevertheless, I think excluding faith groups on principle is chickening out of confronting issues of where the boundaries lie. As an ex-person-of-faith, I know that a lot of religious people simply want to serve.
Charlotte,
Your first paragraph is a perfect example of the illiberal thought which I was referring to. We all know that both sides of an argument can find/fund enough research to “justify” its particular dogma. Ultimately, they believe that homosexuality is wrong, and you believe that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. Both viewpoints are illiberal. We all know the worst thing for a child is to spend lots of time in council care. Driving away a generally good group trying to minimise that problem, just because you can find one thing to disagree with them over is counterproductive.
I vaguely remember some guy was reported once as saying “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Or in more modern terms, “When you’ve found all the perfect adoption agencies you will ever need, then close down the ones which aren’t up to it.”
Whoops, I missed one important clause out. What I should have said was “Both viewpoints are illiberal if used to stigmatise the others.”
Charlotte,
I still think its a can of worms like faith schools are…there are actually serious problems with faith schools in principle in terms of promoting a seperate identity etc etc which obviously dont exist to the same degree here….however, i do see the danger of preferential treatment, allegations of such and the general fostering of provison of care to do with identity…
I think they may even be self selecting in that people will feel inhibited in seeking support..
I am sure you are right and there are plenty of good people in these organisations…I am sure there are good teachers in faith schools however, that does not change the principle at stake which is that the state and whatever services it provides by definition should be seperated from religion and religious organisations…
“Ultimately, they believe that homosexuality is wrong, and you believe that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. Both viewpoints are illiberal [if used to stigmatise the others]”
Opposing naked prejudice is illiberal?
Get. A. Grip.
Iain,
Opposing naked prejudice? Which belief do you consider naked prejudice, or do you consider them both naked prejudice? On what basis do you consider one or both of them naked prejudice. If it’s just because you don’t like them, I think you’re in danger of becoming a part of the same problem. Liberalism has to be applied consistently, not just applied to things you like, and used to exclude people with strongly held views that you happen to disagree with.
I suggest you reconsider your grip of Liberal principles.
David
David Evans, are you seriously claiming it’s wrong to refuse to give public money to a group that’s discriminatory? What if this was about an adoption agency run by a group that believed, based on no good evidence, that black people were racially inferior and made worse parents? Would it be illiberal to exclude them from public sector contracts?
David,
Ultimately, the Nazis believed that the Jewish race should be slaughtered, whereas I believe that discrimination against Jews is wrong. Are you saying that my viewpoint is illiberal? (and yes, I am quite happy to be using it to stigmatise the Nazis, I’m afraid).
Ok, I think I’ve thought this through properly now. Group which have discriminate against certain sections of society have very right to exist (although I also have the right to picket their meetings and tell them they’re bigots, of course). That’s a liberal principle, yes?
But to allow these groups to participate in public sector work is facilitating the imposition of one group’s prejudices onto taxpayers who had no say in the matter. I regard that as a fundamentally illiberal course of action – in effect, the state would be discriminating against the affected groups.
Did that really need spelling out? Or am I just feeding a troll here?
Oh do get a hold of yourself.
The Catholic Church demands a right to discriminate against homosexuals in a way that no non-religious or secular organisation is allowed to do or would ever be allowed to do, because thanks to liberal principles society no longer accepts discrimination against individuals on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Is discrimination against open racists “illiberal”? If the BNP wanted to run a community program but demanded the right to exclude black or mied race couples would you be making the same “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water” argument?
No, of course you wouldn’t.
The plain fact is that the Catholic Church is clinging to traditions and prejdices that are completely incompatible with the laws and mores of modern society. It is their own stubborn attachmemnt to those prehistoric prejudices that are preventing them from carrying out said community work, not some secular oppression being waged against them.
“Ultimately, they believe that homosexuality is wrong, and you believe that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. Both viewpoints are illiberal.”
That is easily the most stupid and offensive sentence I have ever read on this site, and you should be ashamed and embarrassed for having written it.
David,
I think you need to refer back to my original post where I said “Driving away a generally good group trying to minimise that problem, just because you can find one thing to disagree with them over is counterproductive.” I will leave it to you to determine where you think I consider the Nazis and their view on the extermination of the Jews lies, but I would suggest you are over egging your argument a bit here.
Charlotte,
Again, I refer you back to my original post, as I fear your position will if taken to its logical conclusion drive out a significant community that is on balance a great contributor to good in our world. In particular your comment “But to allow these groups to participate in public sector work is facilitating the imposition of one group’s prejudices onto taxpayers who had no say in the matter.” seems rather extreme to me. All adoption agencies have principles and criteria which they use to help them determine whether they believe a candidate adoptive parent would be suitable. Some are easy to agree with – No convicted murderers could be one example; some more difficult – No smokers; one that I find difficult to agree with is “adoption has to be into the same racial group as the child”, particularly if it results in significant delays in adoption for some children. However, as a taxpayer I don’t remember having a say on any of these. And by your own logic, each of these discriminates against some group or other and so is illiberal.
The point I am making whether as a troll or not, is that I fear in this case some in our party are too keen to look for disagreement and make it into a show stopper, rather than look for the good and build an alliance on it. That route leads to an ever smaller “pure” party, but failure for our values.
David
Iain,
Clearly we will never agree on this point, but I would suggest you read my correction where I clearly said “Both viewpoints are illiberal if used to stigmatise the others.” Also I would suggest that comparing Christians’ views on homosexuality (which nowadays tends to be that they believe it is wrong and so cannot support it) with the BNP’s racism (with an undercurrent of violence) and , is a bit of an extreme choice – possibly a bit too close to stigmatising for comfort.
Finally, I do assure you I have a clear hold of myself, and as a liberal I will never be ashamed of supporting minorities that are broadly good but possibly misguided in some area. In trying to do that, I may on occasion be wrong or misguided myself, in reconciling the conflict of differing group’s liberties it was always so, and I always try to explore other liberal’s views to see where their logic lies.
My view is that in adoption the Catholics position was one of not actively supporting, but not one of preventing, and definitely not one of use of violence or other activities to intimidate others to support then. In that it is close to the position of conscientious objectors in WW1, not the BNP or the Nazis and the danger is by using these comparisons we lessen the impact of what the Nazis did and stigmatise a minority A minority who, I know would support much of what we believe in and also we would support much of what they try to do. We must build on what links us, not what divides us.
If you wish to consider these points further, let me know.
David
David,
I apologise for missing your correction, especially since I spotted it (and quoted) it the first time around.
Also I would suggest that comparing Christians’ views on homosexuality (which nowadays tends to be that they believe it is wrong and so cannot support it) with the BNP’s racism (with an undercurrent of violence) and , is a bit of an extreme choice – possibly a bit too close to stigmatising for comfort.
I don’t see any objective difference between the two. They are both irrational prejudices that society and the law once deemed acceptable but now deem unacceptable. The only subjective difference is that the Catholics’ unnaceptable irrational prejudice is codified in the bronze-age book they use for moral guidance while the BNP’s isn’t, but that is only a justification for the Catholics themselves, it means nothing to anyone else.
It’s not my or anyone else’s comparisons that stigmatises the Catholic church, they do that job themselves by means of their own bigotries and prejudices.
Finally, I do assure you I have a clear hold of myself, and as a liberal I will never be ashamed of supporting minorities that are broadly good but possibly misguided in some area. In trying to do that, I may on occasion be wrong or misguided myself, in reconciling the conflict of differing group’s liberties it was always so, and I always try to explore other liberal’s views to see where their logic lies.
I don’t think it’s intolerant to refuse to tolerate the intolerant, and I don’t think it’s illiberal to criticise the illiberal, because taken to its logical conclusion that sort of wet relativism makes it impossible to take a principled stand on any issue. It’s the same sort of logic that labels as “cultural imperialists” those who criticise the barbarities of the Taleban, for example.
My view is that in adoption the Catholics position was one of not actively supporting, but not one of preventing, and definitely not one of use of violence or other activities to intimidate others to support then. In that it is close to the position of conscientious objectors in WW1, not the BNP or the Nazis and the danger is by using these comparisons we lessen the impact of what the Nazis did and stigmatise a minority A minority who, I know would support much of what we believe in and also we would support much of what they try to do. We must build on what links us, not what divides us.
I think your objection to the comparison is just a diversion, but that’s neither here nor there. The point is that the Catholic Church weren’t singled-out for oppression or intentionally excluded from anything, they just couldn’t bring themselves to comply with the laws of the land, laws that were enacted by a democratic government for the protection of a minority. As regrettable as their exclusion may be, I really do fail to see any compelling arguments in favour of granting them an exemption from those laws.
On what grounds do you think religious groups should be entitled to demand such exemptions?
Iain,
Apology accepted, we all make mistakes.
I must admit though, that I am astonished lack of foresight inherent in your comment that you don’t see any objective difference between Christians who disagree with a position and, say, extreme BNP supporters who use violence. Perhaps if you had had a friend who was beaten up for being gay by some real nasty pieces of work, but also had parents who believed homosexuality to be wrong, but still accepted and welcomed friends who were gay, then you might be closer to understanding a truly objective difference.
This is a real difference, not the use of extreme language and weasel words that authoritarian parties like Labour and other trendy lefties use to demonise people who happen to believe in something they don’t.
David