The Wardman Wire

I admit that I am rather surprised to find myself agreeing with an entire column (on Civil Liberties on Comment is Free) by Anthony Grayling:

It is by now a familiar fact that there are more CCTV cameras keeping watch in Britain than in any other country in the world, even in the worst police states. In one way this is an unexceptionable fact, because it could be argued that cameras take the place of policemen on the beat, and far more effectively, thus ensuring public safety and providing a useful adjunct both to the prevention of crime and its punishment.

But it is also a fact that there are a number of ways that CCTV footage can be misused, or lead to serious error. None are hard to imagine. In the capital of the free world, the US, individuals were for decades tracked and monitored, and their communications eavesdropped upon, not because they were known terrorists or criminals, but because of their political views and trade union affiliations: this happened from the late 1940s through the McCarthy, civil rights and Vietnam eras, until it eventually sparked a constitutional debate in the 1970s. The difference between the US and the former Soviet Union in this respect, vanishingly small while the police snooped on political “undesirables”, was that public outcry and political activism in the former brought a (temporary - until the advent of George W Bush) halt to sneaking and prying by the state on its citizens.

Read the rest.

But on the Other Hand

However, I must also mention that Anthony Grayling is an “Honorary Associate” of the National Secular Society, which says that it affirms free speech as one of its General Principles:

Secularism affirms that progress is possible only on the basis of equal freedom of speech and publication; that the free criticism of institutions and ideas is essential to a civilised state.

However, this morning Terry Sanderson, the society’s president, demonstrated his organisation’s commitment to free speech, open debate and fairness by suggesting that Rev Joel Edwards be ejected from the Equality and Human Rights Commission because Mr Sanderson does not like his views:

Secular groups have asked for the removal of the Rev Joel Edwards, a vocal campaigner against legislation banning discrimination against the gay community, from the post of commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Mr Edwards, the general director of the Evangelical Alliance since 1997, has said Christians did not want to find themselves “coerced” by law into aiding promotion of homosexuality.

The National Secular Society claimed the appointment of Mr Edwards would damage the reputation of the commission and raised questions about its objectivity. Terry Sanderson, the society’s president, said: “This appointment must be reversed immediately. Mr Edwards comes to the job with a pre-formed agenda that is based on a literalist reading of the Bible.

“How on earth is he going to look objectively at gay issues when he has made a career out of opposing equality for homosexuals?”

Of course, exactly the same point could be made on the other side of the argument - and a campaigner for Gay Rights, say Peter Tatchell (or Terry Sanderson himself), would have to be excluded from the committee for precisely the same reason. How could somebody with Mr Tatchell’s view possibly be objective - based on Mr Sanderson’s approach.

Ben Summerskill, the Chief Executive of Stonewall, is also on the Commission, and I don’t hear Mr Sanderson calling for his expulsion because of his strong views on “gay issues” (to use Mr Sanderson’s phrase).

This leaves aside the facts that Joel Edwards is one of the most important community leaders in the country, and also previously lead the Afro-Caribbean Evangelical Alliance. Both are perfect qualifications for membership of a body with a remit which also covers Racial Discrimination.

The complaint might have a touch more credibility if it was accompanied by a suggestion that “secularists” should be excluded from commenting on questions of religion. I see no such suggestion. (*)

How can they be objective?

The answer to the question of how Rev Edwards (and Ben Summerskill) will look at questions objectively is - in reality - very simple.

They will apply their wide experience to look objectively at the issues within the remit of the committee, in exactly the same way as is the case for anybody else. Further, since they will do it as part of a body, there will be debate from a range of views.

And the further Implications

The remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission covers 6 areas:

1. Sexual Discrimination.
2. Racial Discrimination.
3. Disability Rights.
4. Age Discrimination.
5. Sexual Orientation.
6. Discrimination on Ground of Religion.

In fact, it seems to me that the suggestion by Mr Sanderson, if implemented, would be itself constitute a case of direct discrimination on grounds of Religion, and indirect discrimination on grounds of Race. Quite ironic for an organisation that is always complaining that those who it claims to be it’s own constituency are discriminated against. I don’t know these laws inside-out, however - so I will welcome any comments.

Wrapping Up

The NSS has 40 or so public figures - including Anthony Grayling - in its list of Honorary Associates, including a number of MPs (Dr Evan Harris, Graham Allen, Colin Challen, Paul Holmes, Kelvin Hopkins, Robert Marshall-Andrews, Joan Ruddock) and also Members of the House of Lords.

I’m not sure whether public figures should be lending credibility to this sort of outburst. How long will it be before there will be the calls for Jews, or Muslims, or Christians, or others to be banned from other roles in public life? The logic is consistent with the NSS stance. After all, individuals with a religious belief are repeatedly characterised in NSS material as “irrational” and “deluded“. Go and look.

Mr Sanderson does, of course, have the right to express these view - but then I have the right to draw attention to the double standards in his position.

(*) Read “secularist” as “campaigning atheist” here - in the context of a secular state “secular” implies allowing all people to express their views in a marketplace of ideas, not à la carte suppression of views and people you don’t agree with.

Tags: anthony grayling, Dr Evan Harris MP, Graham Allen MP, Colin Challen MP, Paul Holmes MP, Kelvin Hopkins MP, Robert Marshall-Andrews MP, Joan Ruddock MP, secularism, national secular society, Equality and Human Rights Commission, ehrc, joel edwards, evangelical alliance

[tags]anthony grayling, Dr Evan Harris MP, Graham Allen MP, Colin Challen MP, Paul Holmes MP, Kelvin Hopkins MP, Robert Marshall-Andrews MP, Joan Ruddock MP, secularism, national secular society, Equality and Human Rights Commission, ehrc, joel edwards, evangelical alliance[/tags]