Everything you need is below, courtesy of Christian Concern for our Nation. The Department for Children, Schools and Families published a consultation on home schooling. Please respond in order to preserve the freedoms of those parents who wish to educate their children at home. The closing date is Monday, 19th October 2009. Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children receive a “suitable” education. The Government wants to usurp the role of parents and impose more governmental control, thus intruding upon families who choose to educate their children at home. Both the Bible and the law recognise it is a parent’s responsibility to educate their children, not that of the Government. Education is compulsory, but school is not. Parents can choose either to send their children to school, or to educate them at home. The Badman Report reviewed elective home education. In our opinion, the Badman Report makes disproportionate and unreasonable recommendations for compulsory registration and invasive monitoring of those families who choose to educate at home. The point of most concern to all parents, especially Christian ones, is the proposal that those who choose to educate at home will have Government officials interview a child alone—without even a parent being present. To read the Badman Report, the Consultation, or to respond on line, click here. Please note that the Government have produced a full response to the Badman Report very recently. To read the press release or the Government’s response, both dated 9th October 2009, clickhere. To read our response click here. To watch the YouTube Response by Education Otherwise to the Report on the Review of Elective Home Education, please click here. Send your response headed “Home Education—Registration and Monitoring Proposals Consultation Response” by e-mail to:homeeducation.consultation@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk There is no need to answer all of the questions in this Consultation unless you wish to do so; you could instead send two or three points by e-mail. Please say that you reject all of Graham Badman’s recommendations and ask the Government to abandon them. We would also suggest you make some of the following points, in your own words: Interviewing Children Alone It is a violation of parental responsibility and rights to interview a child alone. Even the police do not do so. Under no circumstances should this proposal be allowed. National Register Annual registration of children will make no difference to safeguarding them. The current guidelines for local authorities already make it clear that safeguarding applies both to children who attend school and to those who are home-educated. Compulsory annual registration and inspection visits by the Local Education Authority is not welcome, as in many cases it is precisely because of the education system having failed them, that parents have chosen to educate their children at home. The suggestion of criminalising parents who educate at home for failure to register their children is totally inappropriate and disproportionate. It is the parent’s choice to send a child to school or to educate at home. It incorrectly implies that it is the Government who has the responsibility for education, not the parents. No evidence has been provided of the need for a national register. The idea of registering children who are educated at home is akin to the Government imposing a licensing scheme on home education, when it is not the Government’s responsibility to do so. Freedom of Choice Christian parents may wish to educate their children according to Christian values and should be free to do so. Undergoing a state education may result in children learning more about other religions than about Christianity. The UK is subject to international legal obligations that require it to respect the right of parents to ensure their children’s education is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. The freedom to educate at home should not be taken from parents. The Government appears wrongly to be set on a course of eroding parents’ rights in this matter by compulsory means. Misapplying Child Protection Systems to Home Education The Badman Report and the recent DCSF press release of 9th October 2009, inappropriately apply child protection methodology to home education implying that home education can lead to child abuse. In doing this they have cast an unjustified and unfair shroud of suspicion over home educators. Home educators have been tarred as "guilty" merely because they are home educators and are feeling the need to prove their "innocence" in relation to safeguarding issues. The DCSF needs to produce a measured response rather than allowing a small number of safeguarding cases to make “bad law”. Home educators have pointed out that the most dangerous and damaging abuse of children often takes place in children too young to go to school, where children have been withdrawn from school, or where they are already known to social services. Expensive and Unnecessary The proposals are both expensive and unnecessary, because there are already powers the local authority can use to make a School Attendance Order where it appears that a child is not receiving a “suitable” education. Government Control The Government should not seek to control or to intrude on family life. The Badman Report states that, “Few would argue with the assertion that parents are the prime educator within or outside of a schooling system”. The Report then seeks totally to undermine that assertion in the recommendations made which will erode a parent’s freedom of choice over their own child’s education. The proposals reverse the correct presumption of family freedom to educate one’s own children as a matter of parental duty rather than governmental duty. Thus, the Badman recommendations should be rejected as they are founded on this incorrect principle. Children may be withdrawn from school because parents are dissatisfied with the school system for one reason or another and the last thing they would want is more Government intervention. Unjustified Government Control It is of real concern that the proposals include asking parents to provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data. This question is indicative of the Government’s attempt to assert control over what the child is taught and is eroding the basic freedom of parents to educate their children at home. The recent Government proposal to clarify what a “suitable” and “efficient” education means, threatens the freedom of parents to devise a tailored or flexible educational approach for their children in their own homes without one being dictated to them by the Government. Procedural Concern The Department for Children, Schools and Families (“DCSF”) published their Response to the Review of Elective Home Education in England on 9th October 2009, which creates uncertainty for respondents to this Consultation. Members of the public are bound to wonder whether their responses to the present Consultation are actually going to be taken into account in the formulation of policy on home education. The correct procedure should have been either to include the Government’s Response to the Badman Report in this Consultation, so that members of the public could comment on it, or to wait until all responses to the Consultation had been considered before producing a Response. Please also click here to sign the petition to reject the Badman recommendations and retain the freedom for parents to educate at home.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Homeschooling consultation: last call
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Homophobic hate crimes: in the Lords
Action: please lobby the Lords who voted in favour of the clarification of the hate-crimes clause last time around. All they need to do is vote the same way again. To see the list of Peers’ votes, please click here.
From Christian Concern for our Nation: The ‘Chilling Effect’ on Free Speech of the Coroners and Justice Bill and How You can Help to Stop It
The offence of ‘inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ is part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (‘CJI Act’). Lord Waddington successfully inserted a free speech clause into that Act, which clause 61 (formerly clause 58) of the Coroners and Justice Bill now seeks to remove. Clause 61 has been passed by the Commons. It reads as follows:
61 Hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation
In Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation etc), omit section 29JA (protection for discussion or criticism of sexual conduct etc).
Section 29JA (which clause 61 seeks to omit) reads as follows:
29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.
The provisions of the Bill are likely to be considered in the House of Lords shortly after its Second Reading on 18th May.
‘Stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ carries a sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment. Without highlighting the legal distinction between ‘discussion’ on one hand and the ‘stirring up’ of ‘hatred’ on the other, ordinary people will be frightened into silence, unsure whether they can challenge the new morality that seeks to normalise and promote homosexual practice.
Nobody supports the stirring up of hatred, but equally no reasonable person should object to peaceful criticism and discussion of sexual behaviour. Repealing this clause would remove the clear legal protection for such criticism and discussion from the face of the statute. Issuing Guidelines to police and prosecutors cannot hope to undo the damage this will cause. If clause 61 is passed, the consequences would include a climate of fear surrounding the mere discussion of sexual ethics and potentially the silencing of the Christian view.
Let us stand as Christians for our freedom to make a peaceful and reasonable case for biblical sexual ethics.
Attempts to amend this same Bill to allow assisted suicide, including a
high-profile bid by former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, have so far
failed. However, we can expect further attempts by the pro-euthanasia lobby to
decriminalise assistance with suicide abroad during its Committee Stage, which
follows Second Reading. This would render the existing law inconsistent. People
would ask why it is acceptable to assist with a suicide abroad, but not at
home. The consequences are plain for all to see.
A concerted campaign is growing in the media to normalise the idea of legalising
assistance with suicide: Dr Philip Nitschke is in the UK once again promoting
different methods for committing suicide and this month Chris Woodhead, former
chief of OFSTED, has made known his desire to commit suicide in the Daily Mail.
Pray that the Lord would hold the line and that the sanctity of life would be
preserved in our law. For further information, read the latest newsletter from
Care Not Killing by clicking here and visit the website by clicking here.
Please use the list of Peers’ votes at the link below to find out which Peers
voted for the free speech clause in May 2008. Please write to as many as you
can, asking them to attend Parliament to vote for any amendment that would
remove clause 61. If you have any personal contact with a Peer, please seek to
persuade them of the necessity of voting for the free speech clause.
Please join our campaign to protect free speech and to prevent assisted suicide
by writing to Peers. Our updated Information and Action pack provides the
resources you need to do this quickly and effectively. Please click on the icon
on the right and take action as soon as you can. Remember, the date for the
Second Reading is Monday, 18th May, after which the Bill will be discussed in
Committee, when clauses are debated and amendments tabled.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
HFEA 'not fit for purpose'
Briefing.
gamete mix-ups at a London hospital, wrote to Sir Liam Donaldson, chief medical officer, saying: "The HFEA [Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority] should be reformed if it is ever to be fit for purpose". [Sunday Times, 3 May] Pro-life campaigners have frequently highlighted the HFEA's low ethical standards.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Compulsory sex ed from four years old
Parents must be alert! Note this from the LSN article:
Earlier this week, Children's Secretary Ed Balls said that, starting in 2011, personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) will become a compulsory subject for all students in British schools from age four through the end of high school. Lessons will include those on "different types of relationships including same sex and civil partnerships" starting at age eleven. Previously schools were obliged only to teach lessons in human reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons and could opt out of the PSHE courses.
Even if you can opt out of PSHE classes your children will be getting sex education under the guise of science lessons.
There will be a 'consultation' period, but the policy has already been determined.
From the Telegraph (full article here): Pupils as young as 11 will be taught about homosexuality and civil partnerships in compulsory sex education classes.
All secondary schools - including faith schools - will have to teach children about same-sex relationships as well as traditional families.
Previously, heads could decide to opt out of teaching the controversial subject. Personal, social and health education classes are due to become part of the compulsory national curriculum in primary and secondary schools from September 2011. Family and faith groups yesterday condemned the proposals.
From the first year in primary school, four and five-year-old children will learn about different body parts, with lessons about sex from the age of nine. At Key Stage Three (ages 11 to 14), pupils will learn about contraception, pregnancy, sexual activity and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. Schools will also have to teach about ' different types of relationships, including those within families and between older and young people, boys and girls and people of the same sex, including civil partnerships'.
At Key Stage Four (ages 14-16), they will continue to learn about contraception, sexually transmitted diseases and same-sex relationships.
From Life Site News (full article here): LONDON, April 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British government announced this week that it will adopt the recommendations of homosexualist activists and pro-abortion groups to make explicit sex education a compulsory part of the national curriculum for all schools from primary school onward. The plan, however, has angered some of these same groups by allowing "faith schools" to teach traditional Christian sexual morality and allowing parents to remove their children from morally offensive classes.
Earlier this week, Children's Secretary Ed Balls said that, starting in 2011, personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) will become a compulsory subject for all students in British schools from age four through the end of high school. Lessons will include those on "different types of relationships including same sex and civil partnerships" starting at age eleven. Previously schools were obliged only to teach lessons in human reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons and could opt out of the PSHE courses.
But some groups are outraged that the regulations will include an option for Christian schools to apply the "context, values and ethos" of their religion to the lessons and for parents to withdraw their children on religious grounds. Currently, about 0.04 per cent of children are withdrawn from sex education classes by parents and the government said that while the opt-out will remain in place, it will be kept under "constant review."
Monday, April 13, 2009
Card. O'Brien on social collapse
Briefing: is it just me or are bishops saying more interesting things these days?
Cardinal O'Brien tells the Scottish executive that if you wreck society - undermine the family, forbid schools to exercise discipline, encourage under-age sex etc. - you should not be surprised when things even liberals don't like start happening: vandalism, yobbery, drunkeness, public health problems etc.. And having destroyed self-restraint you can't solve the problem with headline-catching initiatives like making booze marginally more expensive.
From CFNews: The leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics today hit out at the way politicians are trying to tackle society's problems, saying Scotland is now "staring into the abyss of social collapse".
Writing in a newspaper on Easter Sunday, Cardinal Keith O'Brien accused politicians of being "paralysed by a chronic fear of moralising" as he called on them to stop passing "frenzied regulation" and do more to look at the underlying causes of social problems, such as drug and alcohol abuse.
He also described the government's crackdown on cheap alcohol as stemming from a "deeply flawed" and "utterly discredited" approach.
He said: "Scotland is staring into the abyss of social collapse. Too many of our young people are caught up in a maelstrom of drug-and-alcohol-fuelled promiscuity, hedonism, vandalism and outright nihilism.
"It is a whirlwind which we will reap for a long time to come. We are paying the price for denying too many of our young people security, stability and morality, a price paid in shattered lives and broken children."
And the Cardinal, in his Easter Sunday Homily, said that too often public policy deals with the symptoms of social breakdown rather than the causes.
He said: "When our fellow citizens err and lapse we seldom focus on them or ask why they behaved as they did. Rather we rush to impose legal restraints on such action forgetting dangerously that no external restrictions can ever match the effectiveness of self-restraint.
"When a toddler is shot with an airgun we regulate the sale of such weapons, alcohol abuse by our young people is met with legislation to restrict sales and sexual promiscuity with regulations aimed at ensuring contraception and abortion are widely available.
"In every instance we seek to mitigate the effects of bad behaviour and perhaps place barriers in the paths of such acts. We do not as a society take action to tackle the underlying motivation; instead we limit our action to blunting the impact of our excesses."
The Scottish Government last month announced plans to set a minimum price for alcohol and ban money saving promotions such as "three for two" deals.
Ministers say alcohol misuse costs Scotland £2.25billion a year.
Cardinal O'Brien added: "In recent weeks much coverage has been given to the decision by the Scottish Government to limit sales of alcohol to young people by increasing the selling price through restrictions on a variety of retail offers and by asking local authorities to consider raising the age for alcohol purchases.
"This policy mirrors the approach taken by this and previous administrations to drug use, vandalism, anti social behaviour, obesity even promiscuity and might usefully be called the 'command and control' model of public governance.
"Advocates of such a model take the view that 'bad behaviour' whether it be public drunkenness, health-threatening over eating or teenage promiscuity are all immutable and unchangeable.
"The urge and desire to commit acts of this type cannot be curbed far less removed therefore public, social and health policy must all be orientated towards mitigating the effects.
"It is an approach, which is deeply flawed and utterly discredited."
Cardinal O'Brien called for action to address what he believes are the underlying causes of social problems, such as marriage breakdown the fracturing of family life.
He said: "Scotland has one of the highest divorce rates in the Western world we also have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates and STI statistics, which are both alarming and growing.
"In the face of all this evidence our Parliament has enacted legislation making divorce easier and quicker and giving greater legal recognition to cohabitation, while our taxation system ruthlessly penalises long-term legal commitment." [STV]
Friday, April 10, 2009
Archbishop Nichols calls for protests over abortion and condom ads
Action: please answer the Archbishop's call. The consultation has not been made very user-friendly but please take a moment to send something in.
The Archbishop also called on Catholics to make their opposition known to proposals to relax rules restricting the advertising of condoms on television.
Appointed as the new Archbishop of Westminster by the Pope last Friday, he said current television advertising for condoms 'demeaned' young people by depicting 'casual sex on the street corner' and 'drunken sex'.
He urged Catholics to respond to a consultation exercise on the proposed changes, saying that the country would not expect abortion to be advertised 'alongside a packet of crisps'.
Archbishop Nichols said: 'I would appeal to Catholics to respond to the consultation and two of the principles put forward are that advertisements should be truthful and tasteful.
'I doubt that any intended adverts about abortion would be fully truthful and tell the whole truth of the effects of abortion in a woman's life. I seriously wonder if any advertisements for the use of condoms would be tasteful because the ones we have at the moment are demeaning of the young people of this country.
'They depict casual sex on the street corner and drunken sex. I do not think these things do anything to genuinely help young people to understand themselves in their own dignity and in the proper meaning of what human sexuality is about.'
Under the terms of the proposals, adverts for pregnancy advisory services could be allowed in prime-time evening slots on the major channels and radio but advertisers would have to stipulate if the service does not refer women directly for abortion.
Condoms could be advertised on television before the 9pm watershed.
Currently Channel 4 is the only channel with permission to advertise condoms from 7pm.
The proposals would mean that for the first time pregnancy advisory services advertisements that were not Government approved would be permitted on broadcast media. [Telegraph]
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Pray for the Westminster succession
Action: Please pray for the Holy Father's choice. God has placed the decision in his hands, and he will have to account for it before God when he is judged. May God give equally him the graces necessary to make the right decision.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Government funds anti-religious zealots
Briefing
From CFNews: It has emerged that £25,000 from a special Government fund set aside for 'building faith communities' has been allocated to the anti-religious British Humanist Association (BHA).
The BHA was behind the atheist bus advertisements which claimed: 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.'
It was also given £35,000 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission last year to run seminars on religious tolerance with prominent atheists giving keynote speeches.
MPs and campaigners have called the decision to fund the group with money from the Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund 'scandalous'.
The Government department responsible for the fund is headed by communities secretary Hazel Blears, who was recently criticised for saying faith groups should only be funded to carry out social projects if they promise not to evangelise.
The figure was unearthed through a written parliamentary question from Conservative MP Caroline Spelman.
Commenting on the news, she said: 'Britain has a long tradition of respecting freedom of religion. But English institutions like local church groups are being discriminated against just for being Christian.
'There is a clear agenda to twist so-called equality and human rights. It is wrong that taxpayers' money is being used to bully town halls into axing funding for Christian faith groups.'
The BHA has provided guidance for local authorities which states: 'Religious pictures on the walls may seem inoffensive to those of the religion in question but can create a hostile or offensive environment for others.'
It also boasts to have helped activists within the City of London Police rename their 'prayer rooms' as 'quiet rooms'.
Mrs Spelman continued: 'It is scandalous that Government cash is being used to train 'local authority equality officers' and tear down the religious paintings and imagery which are part of the fabric of our nation.
'People of all faiths have a right to pursue that faith without taxpayers' money being used to marginalise them.' [Christian Institute]
Friday, March 27, 2009
Morning after pill by text for 11 yr-olds
Briefing.
From SPCU: Children in England aged 11 will be able to request morning-after pills
from nurses by short message service texts. Schools are involved in the scheme in Oxfordshire. The opposition Conservative party said morning-after pills were only for emergencies. Family and Youth Concern said the move would not cut teenage pregnancy. Rev John Saward of SS Gregory and Augustine Catholic church, Oxford, said it was horrendous and would encourage promiscuity.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Free speech ammendment to homosexual rights bill fails
The Sexual Orientation Hatred Offence was originally proposed because homosexual lobby groups convinced the Government that there was a need to give homosexuals this particular protection. We are opposed to incitement to hatred against anyone, but existing legislation provides sufficient protection for every member of society. In 2008, Lord Waddington successfully tabled a free speech amendment to allow ‘discussion or criticism’ of sexual practices. The free speech clause deals with the chilling effect that arises when restrictions are placed on freedom to express biblical views on sexual practice. Although the Government has indicated that written Guidance will be provided to Prosecutors and Police Officers on this matter, this leaves Joe Public in a vulnerable position with no certainty about what he is free to say. This is why free speech protection needs to be stated clearly on the face of the law. Without it those wishing to express legitimate and biblical views about sexual practice could face frightening police investigation for an offence that may carry up to seven years in prison. Unless the Church wakes up and stands against this law it will find itself silenced on this matter as so many Christian Legal Centre cases demonstrate with ordinary folk dismissed and bullied for voicing their beliefs in work and every aspect of life.
The Government and the Liberal Democrats, particularly, opposed the free speech
clause and deemed it either ‘useless or dangerous’. However, David Taylor, MP,
(Labour) argued for free speech specifying that the real issue must be the
protection of human liberties according to the Human Rights Act.
When Christians campaigned the Lord miraculously (by one vote) allowed a free
speech provision to be included in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
(RRH Act 2006) regarding incitement to hatred on the grounds of religion. We
should not forget this. The incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual
orientation offence is modelled on the religious hatred offence. This is why it
would have been consistent and coherent to maintain a free speech provision for
this offence. The desirability of there being a free speech clause in the
sexual orientation hatred offence is imperative for a working democracy which
requires the tolerance of individual opinions. Tom Harris, MP, (Labour)
highlighted ‘public concern that a person who voices an opinion that is not
considered to be politically correct could end up being questioned by police’.
The debate on the free speech provision was won though the vote was lost. See
column 188 to column 204 if you would like to read the debate.
The Coroners and Justice Bill will now be considered by the House of Lords in
May. Please prayerfully consider contacting Peers to ask them to support the
free speech provision and to vote against any attempt to legalise assisted
suicide. See CCFON Action Pack for example letters.
Please pray for a miracle that God will restore the free speech provision to
allow for freedom to discuss sexual ethics and biblical truths. A free speech
clause is essential to defend orthodox, Christian beliefs on sexual morality.
The rights of freedom of religion and of conscience with freedom of speech in a
democratic society should allow for criticisms of different types of sexual
conduct or practices.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Tax payers fund abortion
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development; Bury South, Labour) 'Details of DFID's 2008-09 spending are not yet available but will be published in our 2009 annual report in July. DFID contributions to the listed organisations in the 2007-08 financial year are as follows;
* Marie Stopes International (MSI) (funding for three projects): £220,000
* International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF): £9.55 million (£7.5 million core contribution and £2,050 Safe Abortion Action Fund)
* United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA): £34.9 million (£20 million core contribution, £14.9 million in funding for projects at a country level)
* British Pregnancy Advisory Service: 0
* Family Planning Association: 0
'UNFPA has the global mandate to assist countries deliver better sexual and reproductive health and rights including voluntary family planning services, gender equality, and to better understand population dynamics including growth, ageing, fertility and mortality. Comprehensive family planning includes the provision of reproductive health services and the provision of services to prevent unsafe abortion. It is therefore not possible to disaggregate these figures.
'DFID will provide £8.6 million per annum to IPPF over the next three years. DFID will also provide up to £89.5 million in un-earmarked core funding to UNFPA between 2008 and 2011. We will also provide £100 million between 2008-09 to 2012-13 to support UNFPA's Global Programme for Reproductive Health Commodity Security (GPRHCS).
'It is not possible to provide similar figures for MSI. This is because DFID has a number of funding channels for country programmes including budgetary support for health systems, direct government budgetary support and multilateral funding which may have as a sub-component the provision of family planning commodities and services contracted to MSI'.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Abortion statistics
Briefing.
From CFNews:
The number of conceptions to girls aged under 15, 15 and 16, by Government Office Region (GOR), 2007 (Provisional}
Region : Conceptions : Abortions : Births
England and Wales 2,278 1,481 797
North East 163 105 58
North West 321 210 111
Yorkshire and the Humber 276 174 102
East Midlands 181 117 64
West Midlands 236 153 59
London 327 223 104
South East 277 191 86
South West 189 115 74
Wales 124 68 56
England and Wales 5,918 3,552 2,366
North East 368 201 167
North West 877 526 351
Yorkshire and the Humber 692 400 292
East Midlands 473 260 213
West Midlands 727 435 292
East 466 275 191
London 745 522 223
South East 747 467 280
South West 466 279 187
Wales 357 187 170
Age 16
England and Wales 13,554 6,858 6,696
North East 814 341 473
North West 2,043 1,027 1,016
Yorkshire and the Humber 1,509 694 815
East Midlands 1,101 512 589
West Midlands 1,609 770 839
East 1,164 602 562
London 1,803 1,158 645
South East 1,607 843 764
South West 1,126 578 548
Wales 778 333 445
[Parliamentary written answers]
Another attack on marriage
Briefing.
There is a second reading of Lord Lester’s Private Member’s Bill on cohabitation on Friday 13th of March in the House of Lords. The proposals in the Bill would allow the court to make the same type of financial orders as on divorce where a couple (of the same or opposite sex who are not married or in a civil partnership) have been living together for two years or more, or have a child together. The practical effect of the change would be to remove the distinction between marriage and cohabiting relationships on relationship breakdown.
The Parliamentary page including the text of the Cohabitation Bill can be found here.
This is a Private Member’s Bill, not a Government one. However, in the past Lord
Lester produced a Private Members Bill which was a forerunner to the Government’s own Civil Partnership Act 2004, so we need to seriously take account of the potential influence this Bill may have to undermine marriage. Private Member’s Bills can on infrequent occasions become law.
The background to this Bill is a Law Commission report published in July 2007 on
the financial consequences of cohabitation, which recommended a change in the
law to introduce a limited regime of financial “compensation” for former
cohabitees on relationship breakdown. Details of the Law Commission report and
executive summary can be found here.
In March 2008, the Government interim response to the Law Commission report was to take no further action and await the outcome of research, as shown here. Ministers were reported to want to consider the cost implications.
Lord Lester’s Bill is much more wide ranging than the Law Commission recommendations. It will introduce a new law similar to our current divorce law for all cohabiting couples. It will apply to any cohabiting couple who has lived together for two years or has had a child even if they do not live together. The two years do not even have to be fully continuous and can compromise several separate periods as long as the gaps do not add up to more than six months.
Although the basis upon which orders under the proposed new law are made will be
at variance from current divorce law (for example, there will be a presumption
that the couple will be financially self-supporting with maintenance claims
generally limited to a period of 3 years, and claims will be limited to
“reasonable needs”), the effect in practice will be to remove the distinction
between marriage and cohabiting relationships on relationship breakdown.
However, there is provision for couples to “opt-out” of the obligations the new
law would impose, by entering into a written agreement after the receipt of
independent legal advice by each party.
Response At first blush, the proposals in this Bill may seem attractive in that
they will encourage parties to take responsibility for the consequences of
informal relationships. However the inherent instability of cohabiting
relationships, which are commitment vulnerable, is of great concern because of
the impact of family breakdown, in particular on the children. Statistics show
that only 35 per cent of children born into cohabiting unions will live with
both parents throughout their childhood (to their 16th birthday), compared with
70 per cent of children born within marriage. Millennium Cohort Study data on
15,000 mothers shows that during the first three years of a child’s life, the
risk of family breakdown faced by those who describe themselves as
‘cohabiting’, is 3.5 times greater than that faced by married parents. The
impact on children of family breakdown is of course well-documented. Any legal
change which lowers the status of marriage and makes relationships that are not
characterised by commitment more attractive to people at the expense of
marriage is therefore unwelcome, and likely to be detrimental.
Please pray for the protection of marriage as a stabling foundation of our
nation, and for life-long commitment to bring up children in a secure and
stable family environment. The best way for parents to take responsibility for
their children and one another is to get married.
Please also pray against any legal change that will ultimately undermine this
goal.
Where possible, and particularly if you are in communication with Members of the
House of Lords contact them to register your concern about this Bill, the
underlying philosophy which undermines marriage, and which is in practice
likely to lead to the encouragement of informal relationships that are not
characterised by commitment.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Government pays couples to divorce
Briefing. Yet another study on the 'marriage penalty' imposed by the tax and benefits system.
They found that the introduction of Working Families Tax Credit in 1999 made it easier for mothers to boost their income through work, because it allowed them to claim back 70 per cent of their child care costs.
But the system - which was reformed again in 2003 - also made divorce an "attractive 'outside option'" to women whose husbands were unemployed or worked less than 16 hours a week on low pay. This is because they would be more likely to qualify for the benefits if they were single.
They claim mothers in poor households were more than 2 percentage points more likely to get divorced than childless women after the reforms, "representing an increase of almost 160 per cent with respect to the pre-reform period".
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Petition for parents' rights in education
Action: please sign up here.
'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to remind his government that parents must remain responsible in law for ensuring the welfare and education of their children and that the state should not seek to appropriate these responsibilities'.
The deadline for signing the petion is May 20th, 2009. You have to be a British citizen or resident to sign.)
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Gay propaganda in schools
Action: parents must find out what is happening in their children's schools in the name of 'LGBT History Month' and protest, if necessary. It can't be stressed enough that the most gross propaganda is being shoved down children's throats in all sorts of subjects - it can come in anywhere in the school day.
LGBT History Month has taken place every February since 2005. It was conceived by 'gay rights' campaigners with the aim of educating pupils to recognise homosexuality as normal.
In the past it has tried to teach children that Florence Nightingale was a lesbian and that Isaac Newton was gay.
The organisers commend the efforts of one school in Stoke Newington in 2007. In a report on the school's events, the teacher responsible said: 'Six girls tried to walk out of the Year 9 assembly because they were Christians and their parents had said they were not to take part in any of the LGBT celebrations.'
The teacher said the girls were told 'students must not be racist, sexist or homophobic' and were made to attend the assembly despite their beliefs.
Its current suggested lesson plans include discussing genes, gender and the concept of 'intersex' in science, producing images of LGBT people in art, and exposing Leonardo Da Vinci's bisexuality in Design and Technology classes.
Since the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act in 2003 there has been no statutory ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools.
LGBT History is sponsored by several Government departments, police forces and other public bodies.
Women and equalities minister Harriet Harman, and MEP Michael Cashman, will also be present at the Downing Street reception.
Organiser Tony Fenwick said: 'This is a fantastic moment for the LGBT community; we really are on the threshold of something big.
'Who would have thought five years ago that a group wanting to put lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans people into the National Curriculum would be welcomed by the Prime Minister of our nation?'
The organisers of LGBT History Month say: 'Schools have a crucial role in educating for equality. They have a responsibility to every pupil to ensure a safe and secure learning environment in which they can thrive. They have a responsibility to all pupils to prepare them for adult life in the real world.
'A key part of of the educational process is to ensure that the culture of our schools is inclusive and welcoming. Countering the prevalent assumption that everyone represented in the curriculum (including the hidden curriculum) is heterosexual becomes essential.'
They say: 'This focused month is uniquely placed as a national initiative encouraging staff and students alike to collectively challenge the homophobia and prejudice which is endemic in our society.
'Diverse images round the school that include LGBT people at work and as parents contribute much to set new norms.'
The organisers offer the following examples of how another school incorporated LGBT History Month into the curriculum.
* Maths lesson explored the work of Alan Turing, [a gay man], known as the Father of Computers.
* English lesson read James Baldwin [a gay man], and explored how his sexual orientation affected his work. Jackie Kay, a lesbian of black Scottish heritage is another fine writer pupils can study.
* Geography lesson explored population movement and discovered why and how LGBT people move to cities around the country and sometimes move to new countries.
* Religion class explored how various texts mention sexual orientation and gender and how people differ in their interpretation and behaviour and how these can be interpreted in terms of social harmony.
* Media lessons explored the images of LGBT people and why they are predominately young and male and white people.
* Science lesson discussed genes and gender and the concept of intersex.
* Art class used to produce images of LGBT people that could be used in the school
* Drama season used LGBT History as the basis of an improvised play to educate and entertain the whole school on the issues.
* Design and Technology lesson on some of Leonardo da Vinci's inventions, and remembering to expose his bi-sexual identity.
[Christian Institute]
Thursday, February 26, 2009
New teachers' code threatens Christian teachers
Action: please take a few minutes to complete the survey - the new code is undergoing consultation by the General Teaching Council. The key point here is that instead of being fair to pupils and not demeaning them (as the old code demands), the proposed code expects teachers to promote a particular political agenda, that of 'equality and diversity'. As we have learnt to our cost, promoting (as opposed to tolerating it or respecting it etc.) 'diversity' means encouraging non-traditional lifestyles and so on - a totally inappropriate thing for a teacher to do, even according to the government: he Government’s own Sex and Relationship Education Guidance says that it is “inappropriate teaching” to promote a sexual orientation.
From Christian Concern for our Nation: The General Teaching Council for England published their new draft Code of Conduct and Practice for teachers in England in November 2008. Teachers are required to sign a clause saying that they will adhere to the Code before they can be registered and the Code is used as a standard by which teachers are judged by the GTC or by Employment Tribunals, as well as by schools and Local Education Authorities.
It is of concern that the Code requires teachers to “promote equality and diversity in all their professional relationships” in Principle 4. This implies that teachers will be required to promote other religions and/or sexual practices outside marriage and it could lead to censorship. We believe that teachers should be required to respect pupils, parents and colleagues from other backgrounds, but should not be required to promote other religions and sexual orientations such as homosexuality that are contrary to their beliefs. The ordinary meanings of the words “equality” and “diversity” should not cause a problem, but recent cases have shown how these terms have been interpreted to require promotion of values contrary to Christian beliefs. For example, a nurse, Caroline Petrie, was suspended for offering to pray for a patient and a registrar, Lillian Ladele, was dismissed for refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies. It is important to respond to this survey because as a result of this draft Code, Christian teachers could face disciplinary action or even dismissal for practising their faith.
Please take a few minutes to defend the freedoms of Christian teachers by responding to the survey.
Responding to the Survey Anyone can respond to the General Teaching Council for
England’s survey on their draft Code of Conduct for teachers. Before you respond, you need to read the draft Code of Conduct and practice, which can be accessed here: http://www.opm.co.uk/gtc/GTCE_draft_code.pdf.
Replies are needed by Friday 27th February 2009.
The questionnaire is anonymous. Answers can be changed by going backwards and
forwards between questions and only once the ‘submit’ button is clicked will
the entire survey be sent. The website estimates that users should be able to
complete the survey in 15 minutes.
The survey’s website advises you that if you experience technical difficulties
completing the survey you can contact Jo Sloman on 020 7239 7823 and that if
you wish to talk to someone about the survey you can contact Kate Willcocks at
OPM by e-mail: kwillcocks@opm.co.uk or by phone: 020 7239 0875.
interest in the survey. You will therefore be asked whether you are a teacher,
a parent, a governor, a pupil and so on. You will also be asked what your
length of service is, or the age of your children as appropriate. All
participants are required to state whether they are responding from within
England and from which region.
Section B asks questions about the Code itself and offers the opportunity for
general comments regarding the introduction to the Code (box B2); the content
of the Code (box B5) and the language or tone of the code (box B7).
Section C gives you an opportunity to make general comments.
You can see our responses to the questions that ask for comments if you click on
this link http://www.ccfon.org/docs/CCFON_Response_to_the_GTCE_Survey.pdf .
Please answer the questions as you see fit, including a selection of our points
if you wish, but it is best if you try and put them in your own words. You may
forward this e-mail to others who may wish to respond to the survey, but please
do not post it on any website. You will need to fill in the survey at the
following link: http://www.opmsurveys.co.uk/gtcsurvey.htm.
We suggest that you use some of the following points in your answers:
All teachers need to be registered, so this means that Christian teachers, who
have to agree to abide by the Code, will be signing up for an equality and
diversity agenda that is contrary to their core beliefs.
A teacher’s job is to teach, it is not to be an equality and diversity officer.
The Government’s own Sex and Relationship Education Guidance says that it is
“inappropriate teaching” to promote a sexual orientation, it is therefore
doubly inappropriate to be disciplined for not doing so.
The new draft Code should take the approach of the current Code in setting down
minimum standards only.
Much of what is in the new draft Code (when compared to the current Code) should
be contained in non-disciplinary guidance. Teachers should not be disciplined
for acting on their values, but only when they bring the profession into
disrepute, such as by acquiring a criminal conviction or by demeaning a pupil.
The code should not cover matters of promoting higher professional standards,
which should be in a separate advisory non-disciplinary guide.
The code on equality and diversity could be used to victimise Christian
teachers, who do not wish to promote a sexual orientation and other religions
contrary to their beliefs.
The cases of the nurse Caroline Petrie and of Jennie Cain, a primary school
receptionist who is being investigated by her school after her 5 year-old
daughter spoke to friends about Jesus, show how the equality and diversity
agenda can be used to victimise Christians.
All current references to equality and diversity should be removed from the
draft Code and replaced by the wording on these issues in the current Code to
show that teachers’ duties amount to treating those from diverse backgrounds
with respect by refraining from demeaning them—the correct scope for
disciplinary matters.
The equality and diversity promotion aspects of the code could be used gradually
to remove from the teaching profession Christian teachers and prospective
Christian teachers, because they will be unable, in good conscience, to comply
with its requirements. The Christian ethos motivates many of the profession’s
most valued, loving, caring teachers. In short there is a danger that the
profession will lose many talented and experienced teachers who are currently
an asset to the profession.
Teachers should not be required to promote what may amount to a
politically-correct view that is contrary to their consciences and beliefs.
“Diversity” means respecting the diversity of staff as well as that of pupils
and/or parents.
The Code is used for the registration of all teachers and their discipline so it
is important to ensure that it is restricted to minimum standards only.
Christian teachers and prospective Christian teachers would have great
difficulty in agreeing to Principle 4 that requires the promotion of equality
and diversity; such issues should not be included.
There is already growing concern at the victimisation of Christian teachers in
schools in relation to diversity issues, including a head teacher who tried to
apply the statutory requirement for collective worship in assemblies, (see the
following article from The Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4623783/Christianity
-in-schools-why-were-losing-our-religion.html) and this code will make such
matters much worse.
The code could result in those who wish to attack both Christian teachers and
Christianity in schools having the ammunition to do so using terms such as
“equality”, “diversity” and “inclusion” as a pretext. These terms are causing
the marginalisation of Christianity.
The effect of this code could be gradually to remove Christian teachers and
those of other faiths from the teaching profession.
There is a difference between teaching about other faiths and promoting them.
The new draft Code should be reformulated along the lines of the current Code,
which serves its purpose as a disciplinary code well, because it restricts
itself to disciplinary matters. Much of the material in the draft Code should
be in a separate code of advisory, non-disciplinary status, covering
professional standards. For example, teachers showing the core values of
“excellence and continual development” and “commitment and empathy” are
professional standards to strive to achieve, but failure to attain them should
not warrant disciplinary measures.
Andrea Minichiello Williams
Christian Concern for our Nation
http://www.ccfon.org
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Government: don't tell your children underage sex is wrong
Briefing. Beyond belief.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Muslims and Secularists on collision course
Comment: ethnic minorities, of which Muslims form an important part, are a key part of the electoral coalition which underpins the Labour Party. The thinking is that it is easier to bribe them with economic and cultural goodies, and keep them voting for an intrusive government, than groups who are wealthier or more integrated. Islamic terrorism has put this relationship under strain. But a longer-term problem is that another key part of the Labour coalition is the liberal chattering classes, who, while happy to patronise ethnic minorities, also want to expunge traditional morality and all forms of religion.
From LifeSiteNews: The Guardian reports that a document known as Contest 2 reveals plans to widen the definition of 'extremist' as part of the antiterrorism effort to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values. Under the plan Muslims who believe homosexuality is sinful could be considered as 'extremist,' by that fact alone.
The counter-terrorism strategy, reports the Guardian, would consider people as potential terrorists if they are in favour of a pan-Islamic state involving many countries and headed by a caliphate; promote the application of Sharia Law; believe in jihad or support the armed resistance of Palestinians against Israel; and perceive homosexuality as a sin and argue that it is banned by Islam.
The acid test of this counter-terrorism plan is reportedly not whether an individual promotes these views by means of violent action, but, while condemning violence, holds or even discusses these ideas.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, in a speech in December, had said that an effective anti-terror strategy required a mental dimension that includes challenging non-violent extremist groups that 'skirt the fringes of the law ... to promote hate-filled ideologies.'
Advocates of the proposed code say that rigid interpretation of the Qur'an forms the root cause of terrorism which threatens the British people; opponents claim that this strategy would brand the vast majority of British Muslims as extremists and would lead to further alienation of British Muslims from British society.
Homosexualists in Britain are praising the proposed plan. An article in PinkNews, a homosexualist news service in the UK, quoted a 2007 survey of Muslins living in London which revealed that 'less than 5% (of Muslims) thought homosexual acts are 'acceptable,' compared with more than 65% of the general population.'
As an example of the 'extreme' Muslim belief concerning homosexuality, PinkNews quotes Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, who called homosexuality, 'a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society, it is not acceptable.'
'Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and, I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area.'
The Guardian report has raised concerns for some that the movement to marginalize those who hold to traditional moral teachings on sexuality is gaining ground. In recent years U.K. law has become increasingly hostile to those who believe homosexual acts are immoral, particularly with the passage of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR's) in 2007.
The SOR's specify that no one may 'discriminate' against homosexuals in the provision of goods and services, including in religious schools, adoption and social aid agencies, hotels or rental facilities. They have been used to force Catholic adoption agencies to deviate from their specifically Catholic nature and begin adopting children to homosexual couples, against Catholic teaching. There have also been cases of couples not being allowed to adopt children merely because they hold to tradition views of sexuality.
One interesting consequence of the new counter-terrorism strategy, however, is that it could see Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, under suspicion as an extremist for his defence of the encroachment of Islamic Sharia law into the British legal system as 'unavoidable.'
The titular head of the Church of England said in an interview with BBC Radio 4's World at One program last year that Britain had to 'face up to the fact' that some accommodation for Sharia law would be implemented in Britain. He argued that since British law 'accommodates' the views of Catholics and some others on issues such as abortion, Sharia should be welcomed on the grounds of tolerance for religious viewpoints. 'And anyway,' he said, 'certain provisions of Sharia are already recognized ... So it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system.'
Subsequently, the Sunday Times reported that the government had officially accepted the existence of Sharia law courts to officiate in Muslim civil cases. Since August 2007 the courts have dealt with more than 100 cases, ranging from Muslim divorce and inheritance cases as well as six cases of domestic violence, normally a criminal procedure under British law. [LSN]
Saturday, February 21, 2009
New charities guidlines
Briefing.
The Christian Institute write : 'We do not believe that churches will face any difficulties complying with the law. The guidance is not legally binding but trustees of religious charities are required to have regard to' the Commission's analysis. The Commission says this means trustees should be able to show that they are aware of the guidance, have taken it into account where relevant and have good reasons if they choose not to follow it.
As a result of a consultation on draft guidance held last year, the Charity Commission has addressed several concerns raised by Christian groups. For example, the draft guidance suggested that the Commission was intending to regulate membership criteria of religious groups, including churches. This suggestion is absent from the final guidance. The final guidance also contains assurances that vexatious and unsubstantiated complaints to
the Commission about religious charities will be dismissed.
Despite the improvements, there are still some worrying parts of the guidance. We still have concerns about the Commission's approach to charities which have the sole purpose of seeking to convert people from one religion to another, though there is an encouraging recognition that evangelism is
regarded as a central part of the Christian religion.
The guidance also implies that the Commission can adjudicate on what is correct religious doctrine and practice. But these are matters the Commission is neither able nor supposed to determine.
Fundamentally, we believe that the Charity Commission is wrong in law to apply an 'activities test' assessing the benefits versus the detriments of a charity's activities. According to some leading experts in charity law the
Commission has misinterpreted the new Charities Act. These experts say that under the Act 'public benefit' should have the meaning developed by English case law, which does not include an activities test'.
