'We have the laws to tackle bigotry - but police just aren't using them,' says top historian

SCOTTISH police are failing to use their powers to tackle sectarianism, one of Scotland's top historians has claimed.

Speaking ahead of a debate on the problem in Edinburgh tonight, Professor Tom Devine said religious bigotry went beyond football, and he dismissed the idea sectarianism was peddled by only a small number of supporters.

Sectarian songs were sung by
a significant number of fans and were an example of underlying religious hostility that stretched beyond the west coast, he said.

Prof Devine said SNP ministers "took their foot off the pedal" on sectarianism and were facing the most "explicit" and "extreme" religious bigotry in decades.

But other academics insist sectarianism is not widespread throughout Scotland, despite a football season blighted by problems on and off the field involving mainly the Old Firm of Celtic and Rangers.

Prof Devine said: "It is clear, and I get the vibrations from the top of the SNP, that they took their foot of the pedal.

"Such is the scale of what has happened, and such is the international reaction of horror, that any government would have to take further action, and that is what is going to happen.

"I cannot recall in my lifetime a situation where sectarianism has been so explicit, extreme and attracted such international attention. It has certainly put Scotland on the map in a rather unsavoury way."

Last week the Scottish Government announced plans for new legislation, which could see people causing sectarian disruption jailed for up to five years.

Last week, official statistics showed a 9.7 per cent increase in criminal charges aggravated by religious prejudice in 2010-11 compared with 2006-7.

Speaking ahead of the debate at Edinburgh University, Prof Devine said the idea of a "small minority" singing sectarian songs was "rubbish", adding that it indicated a deep-rooted problem in Scottish society.

Rangers and Celtic have previously claimed that only a limited number of their fans sing "unacceptable" songs. But Prof Devine said: "These individuals who behave like this at games, and there are many thousands of them, must reflect deeper attitudes of society. The idea of a small minority is just a joke."

He also attacked the police's handling of sectarian singing at football matches, saying the powers they have are not being properly used.

"It goes back to the notorious sectarian singing at the Scottish League Cup final, where collectively several thousand people were brazenly carrying out a sectarian breach of the peace and the police did nothing", he said.

"I cannot understand this statement which they make, 'We cannot arrest ourselves out of this situation'. It is almost to say that the only way to deal with this is by indirect means.

But what you do is make sure that whenever that horror gets into the public domain, there is an effective and rigorous implementation of the law.

"The laws are there - it is just that people are being allowed to get away with it."

However, Dr Michael Rosie, another leading academic on the subject of bigotry, said Scotland was "not a sectarian society", arguing that the problem centred on football.

"These problems arose because of unusually high tensions on the pitch, or, more accurately, tensions on the pitch between Celtic and Rangers," he said.

"The relationship between the two clubs who utterly dominate Scottish football is at the very heart of the problem. It focuses, shapes, provokes and timetables religious bigotry."

Among those expected to attend tonight's debate are former Celtic director Michael Kelly, the historian Owen Dudley Edwards and Glasgow MSP Bob Doris.

NSS meets with Education Department officials to discuss religious schools admissions

The NSS’s Keith Porteous Wood and Stephen Evans met with senior officials from the Department of Education’s admissions policy team this week to discuss concerns over religious schools ahead of the imminent publications of the new admissions code.

Stephen Evans, NSS Campaigns Manager, said; “while we’re more than happy to accept a simplified code, what we can’t accept is a weakened code that gives religious schools wiggle room to use backdoor selection to cherry pick children from more affluent families.”

There is clear evidence that the discriminatory admissions policies operated by some religious schools, in addition to being unfair, encourage social segregation and are detrimental to community cohesion.

New ‘free schools’ must take 50 per cent of pupils without reference to religion, but concerns were raised earlier this year when Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, told the Jewish Chronicle that, once the 50 per cent quota had been reached, new Jewish free schools would still be able to fill the remainder of places with Jewish children. The Department assured us there was no mechanism whereby this could be achieved. Officials at the Department assured us that the new admissions code would be at least as rigorous as the current code. It is open to question however, how many parents not of the faith would wish to send their children to a minority religious school.

A senior official of the faith schools extremism unit, who also attended the meeting, assured us that groups advocating creationism as a scientific theory, and those with values “inconsistent with British democratic principles” would automatically have any free school applications refused.

The NSS also raised concerns over proposals in the Education Bill that could spell the end of local admissions forums and a weakening of the powers of the Schools Adjudicator. While no agreement was reached, it was made clear that new proposals in the admissions code could go some way to increasing local accountability of schools in relation to admissions.

This was the first time the NSS has met with the Department since last year’s election and the meeting was very positive.

“Missionary zeal of obsessive secularists” blamed for loss of interest in RE

Liberal Democrat MP John Pugh attacked the “missionary zeal of obsessive secularists” for leading to a diminished emphasis on RE teaching.

The comments came in a debate in Westminster Hall which sought to pressure the Government into including RE in the new English baccalaureate. 

The debate was packed with pious, even evangelical, MPs anxious to promote religion in schools, each making more inflated claims for the “essential” nature of RE than the last.

Education Secretary Michael Gove said that he would “take on board” the concerns of the religious establishment, which is panicking at the prospect of the gradual loss of interest in Religious Education. The reason RE has been left out of the English baccalaureate (E-Bac) is that the Government wants to encourage students to choose vocational subjects that will benefit them in later life rather than subjects such as media studies and religious education that have little practical value.

Winding up the debate, Education Minister Nick Gibb said that RE should be part of a “broad and balanced curriculum” and that he wanted to “get away from the mentality that a subject is only important if it is mentioned in the National Curriculum.”

Meanwhile, The Bishop of Birmingham kept up the pressure in the House of Lords. He asked education minister Lord Hill of Oareford: “Are you aware of the deep and widespread concern that, in narrowing the compulsory subjects in the E-Bac, there will likely be a reduction in religious studies and religious education learning — rigorous academic subject that it is — and a consequent reduction, which is already happening, in places for PGCE training of RE teachers?

“Underlying that, there is the likely erosion of religious literacy, particularly among more able and older teenagers, which is essential in our diverse society. Would you be prepared to consider adding religious education to the other excellent humanities subjects of geography, English and history?”

Lord Hill replied that he understood the views expressed by the churches and church schools. He added: “The choice of subjects currently in the E-Bac is not meant in any way to imply that subjects that are not in are less worthy or less academically rigorous.”

And he said the number of children taking RE GCSE had been increasing while those taking history and geography had been decreasing. “In seeking to redress that balance, I understand the strength of the feeling that there is in church schools, which do a wonderful job in educating our children,” he said. “It is always the case that the E-Bac is not fixed in stone, and these things need to be kept under review.”

Nadine Dorries's dangerous message

Why is the abstinence-for-girls MP invited to incite moral panic about children on daytime television?

Nadine Dorries, the MP for Mid Bedfordshire, appeared on The Vanessa Show to discuss her views on abstinence-based sex education for girls.
Tucked away on daytime TV on Monday afternoon, Nadine Dorries was justifying her proposals for elements of abstinence-based sex education for girls. The Vanessa Show saw the Conservative MP go head to head with Julie Bentley, chief executive of the sexual health charity FPA. The women, along with presenter Vanessa Feltz and retired rugby player Lawrence Dallaglio, discussed the bill that was unveiled to the House of Commons two weeks ago. When it was first introduced, Dorries insisted her aim was to empower teenage girls to say "no" to sex. There is really nothing empowering about teaching young women that their sexuality is not their own. Abstinence-based sex education teaches girls that sex isn't something that they participate in – instead, it's something they give in to. Towards the end of the debate, Dorries said:
"A lot of girls, when sex abuse takes place, don't realise until later that that was a wrong thing to do … Society is so over-sexualised that I don't think people realise that if we did empower this message into girls, imbued this message in schools, we'd probably have less sex abuse."
This argument risks blaming the victim, is dangerous and has no place in sex education or mainstream discourse. Her comments situate girls as the gatekeepers of sexual morality, and could make sexual abuse victims feel chastised with a message that maintains that the abuse is easy to end by saying "no". Ignorance paired with influence is a lethal combination. While it's easy to dismiss her nonsense as fact-lacking populism, her words are gaining support. Listen closely to Dorries's comments and you'll notice that what she expresses as care and concern is actually old-fashioned shaming and blaming. She says that it is "girls who lose their education, girls that go on benefits, girls who usually throw in the towel and spend a lifetime on benefits, girls who enter old age in poverty, girls who usually end up with a row of guesting fathers and more babies because they can't get back into education". Heteronormativity in her discourse is nothing new, but why does she only talk about females being sexually abused by males, and not mention male victims of sexual abuse at all? By placing emphasis on the victims' potential to halt abuse, she distracts from the abusers' responsibility. Her comments are cruel and flawed. Dorries is right in some respects. Pop culture has a nasty habit of packaging up perceptions of sexuality and selling it back to us. But the word "sexualised" does little to encompass this. If anything, teenagers need to be fully informed about sex so that they can make their own decisions – not ones influenced by MTV, or by misguided MPs in parliament. What is worrying is the misleading information. During her diatribe she referenced leaflets from the Sheffield NHS Trust aimed at 11-year-olds in schools, with the heading "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". In fact, the headline appeared in an advice booklet to help adults working with teenagers aged 14 and over. She also perpetuates the myth that from the age of seven, children are taught the art of applying condoms to bananas. Sex educator Alice Hoyle disputes Dorries's claims, saying: "I've never known it to happen in primary schools, and neither have any of my colleagues. It would be unusual and unlikely for this to happen in primary schools, and I would be incredibly surprised if any preteens had even had one condom demonstration by the age of 13". Dorries cites no sources and she releases no evidence, yet she is invited on daytime television to incite moral panic about children. A post on her blog confirms she was pleased with her appearance, but the ideas she is spreading are dangerous. It is unbelievable that an elected representative can make these kinds of unsubstantiated claims in parliament, and even more unbelievable that her original 10-minute bill passed by a majority of six in the Commons. With Dorries doing the rounds on daytime television chat shows, it appears that she is attempting to drum up support to pile public pressure on to politicians in time for the bill's second reading in January.

Vatican Named in New Lawsuit

Spokesman for the Vatican says there's no merit to the case because it's a sovereign nation and can't be sued under U.S. law.

A lawsuit filed Wednesday in Federal court accuses the Vatican of directly covering up the accusations of sexual abuse by U.S. priests, including one here in Chicago.

Attorney Jeff Anderson said he is bringing the suit on behalf of a woman whose son was sexually abused by Fr. Daniel McCormack.

"All the problems of this kind lead to Rome and to the Vatican," Anderson said, alleging that the Holy See is engaging in a criminal conspiracy to conceal the abuse by McCormack.

"It is the protocols, their practices and their polices that demand secrecy...  that allow this to continue unabated," he said.

In 2008, the Archdiocese of Chicago agreed to pay millions of dollars to settle claims brought by five McCormack victims, including the one involved in this case.

But Anderson said the Vatican was not named in that settlement and his suit is designed to hold top Vatican officials, including Pope Benedict, responsible for covering up abuse.

According to the lawsuit, McCormack raised funds for the annual Peter’s Pence collection benefitting the Vatican while church officials knew he was involved with sexual misconduct with children.

A lawyer representing the Vatican says there is no merit to the case.

Attorney Jeffery Lena says it "rehashes the same tired theories already rejected by U.S. Courts."

The Holy See maintains that, as a sovereign nation, it cannot be sued under U.S. law.

Fr. McCormick pleaded guilty to sexually abusing children in 2007, and has already served his sentence, but is still in state custody. Prosecutors are seeking to have him detained indefinitely as a "sexually violent predator."

Pope issues new guidelines on child abuse

Pope Benedict has approved the release of the new guidelines to tackle child sexual abuse within the church.

Pope Benedict has issued new guidelines to bishops, encouraging them to report all suspected cases of sexual abuse of minors by priests.

Mailed to bishops around the world, the guidelines are the latest effort to eradicate child sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.
Bishops are told to cooperate with police but they are not required to report allegations to the authorities if local law does not require it.
"Sex abuse of minors is not just a canonical delict but also a crime prosecuted by civil law," the letter said, stressing civil law "should always be followed".
"The guidelines ... seek to protect minors and to help victims in finding assistance and reconciliation."
David Clohessy from the US victims group Survivors' Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) says the new rules are meaningless.
"Even if you do believe that this represents a tiny belated, begrudging baby step forward, he has to acknowledge that there's not a single child on the planet who's safer today because of these words by the Vatican," he said.
Mr Clohessy says the guidelines are belated and do not go far enough.
"As an absolute minimum there should be a global no-tolerance policy," he said.
"Fundamentally the reason that Church officials ignore, conceal and mishandle sex crimes is because they can."
Britain's National Secular Society warns the guidelines say bishops have to report cases to secular authorities only if they do not prejudice the "sacramental internal forum".
"Which probably means cases should be heard, where it is possible, in secret under canon law, which provides for no more serious penalty than defrocking, and even that ... only the most extreme cases," it said in a press release.
The Vatican has come under pressure in recent years over paedophilia, and the scandal of child-abuser priests peaked last year with a string of high-profile revelations in Belgium, Germany and Ireland.
The Holy See has been accused of being slow to out paedophile priests and last month, Amnesty International said it was still failing to meet international obligations to protect children.

Osama bin Laden's wasted life

And what could anyone add to the ocean of comment and opinion and conclusion and musing and snarling and vengeful remarks published and shouted about the recent death of Mr O. bin Laden, late of Abbottabad, Pakistan, shot to death in his bedroom, perhaps with his television remote in his hand, perhaps moments after he finished coloring his beard black again for a video production scheduled for the morning?
Not much, especially in my case, after nearly ten years of quiet rage that he murdered three of my friends on September 11, cackling over their deaths, a cackle I will never forget as long as I live.
And yet, I find myself thinking how very sad; not his death, in which the bullets he had so often assigned to others found him at last, but his life, wasted on a foolish and murderous idea, causing such epic wreckage, and perhaps in the end doing far more damage to his beloved religion than anyone else in its long and often admirable history.
I say this as a Catholic man, well aware that my religion tried bin Laden's idea, and found it a roaring failure, responsible for uncountable deaths of innocent souls; we call our collective terrorism campaign the Crusades, and even the most rabid among Catholics today cannot say with a straight face that our attacks on the infidel succeeded in anything except gaining the Church a well-deserved reputation for militant murder; and from those bloody years the Church sensibly retreated back mostly to a business model, spending the next 700 years as one of the largest, richest, most influential, riveting, and troubled corporations in human history.
Catholic nations continued to send agents to murder and rob the pagans of the New World, certainly, but rather than murder other established religions we sought to outpopulate them, ignore them, negotiate complex truces, or, as we did recently with the Anglicans, offer them readmission to the mother ship from which years ago they embarked, in their case because of the sexual politics of kings, one of the great human spectator sports.

In a real sense, after the Crusades finally petered to their ignominious end, we matured as a religion, we realised that the sword was the worst of persuasive devices, and we turned to other hinges of history, some brilliant, like the public relations geniuses Mother Teresa of India, Karol Wojtyla of Poland, Mary MacKillop of Australia, and the elementary school system on which much of modern Catholicism was built.
Today, long centuries after we waged holy war against people who called God other names than we did, there are a billion Catholics, and two billion followers of the devout Jew Yesuah ben Joseph.
It was the fervent dream of the late Mr bin Laden that an epic war arise between the nearly two billion followers of Muhammad ibn Abdullah, blessed be his name, and the followers of Yesuah ben Joseph, blessed be his name, and this fiery dream, born in 1998 with the murder of Kenyan and Tanzanian innocents, consumed 20 years of what must have been a very bright intellect, an often-attested-to personal charisma, and a mountainous personal fortune, and again I find myself thinking how sad this was, how misguided, how twisted.
What a waste of gifts given to that man by the Creator!
Imagine, for a moment, the same man alert to humour, perhaps the greatest weapon of all. Imagine the same man infused by the holy merriment of a John XXIII, a Dalai Lama, a Desmond Tutu. Imagine that same poor soul, consumed day and night by smouldering hate and worries about rehearsing his lines for his video performances, alert instead to the power of mercy, apology, simplicity, conversation, common ground.
Imagine what he might have done for the religion he loved, had he bent his capacious talents to witty connection rather than wanton destruction. Imagine, for a moment, that he might have become a great man, rather than the preening thug he was, wrapped in a shawl, obsessed with himself, hiding in a dark room, waiting for the explosive death he must have known would someday be his fate.
What a waste.