|
|
Preventing extremism togetherResponse by the United Reformed Church to Home Office consultation "Preventing Extremism Together - Places of Worship" November 20051. Introduction
1.1. This response to the Home office consultation paper “Preventing Extremism Together – Places of Worship” is produced on behalf of the United Reformed Church by the Inter-Faith Relations Committee and the Church and Society Committee of the Church.
2. Background
2.1. The United Reformed Church, often known as the ‘URC’, comprises 150,000 adults and 100,000 children and young people in 1750 congregations spread throughout England, Scotland and Wales, served by some 1100 ministers, both women and men.
2.2. The Church was formed in 1972 by the union of the Congregational Church in England and Wales and the Presbyterian Church of England; in 1981 it entered into union with the Re-formed Churches of Christ and in the year 2000 with the Congregational Union of Scotland. Though one of the smaller of Britain’s ‘mainstream’ denominations, the URC stands in the historic Reformed tradition, whose member denominations make up the largest single strand of Protestantism with more than 70 million members world-wide. Theologically, it is a broad church; its membership embraces congregations of evangelical, charismatic and liberal understandings of the Christian faith.
3. Proposed new power
3.1. The consultation paper proposes a legal process whereby a “very senior” police officer could authorise application to a court for a “Requirement Order”, requiring those controlling a place of worship to stop extremist behaviour (defined as that which the police reasonable (sic) believe amounts to support for a proscribed organisation under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or encouragement of terrorism as proposed in the Terrorism Bill). If reasonable steps are not taken to give effect to the Order, those controlling the place of worship will be guilty of an offence. If the activity continues the police can apply for a “Restriction of Use Order” which could include temporary closure of all or part of the premises.
4. United Reformed Church stance
4.1. The United Reformed Church recognises and supports government’s need to try to prevent terrorist activity, to ensure the safety and well-being of all its citizens. It has joined other churches and church leaders, in condemning terrorist activities and, in counselling against retaliation – and it will continue to do so. However, it has significant concerns about the proposed legislation.
4.2. The United Reformed Church is particularly sensitive to any suggestion that freedom to worship might be curtailed, and places of worship closed, because of the history of Congregationalists, Presbyterians and other dissenters suffering persecution in Britain in the Seventeenth Century, as a consequence of the state seeking to control what could be preached, who could preach it, and where it could be preached. It seems inconceivable that a liberal, civilised democracy might want to go down that road again.
5. Response to consultation questions
5.1. Question A. How great a problem is the issue of places of worship being used to foment violent extremism, and how effective are existing measures and powers to counteract the problem?
5.1.1. The URC is concerned that places of worship have been targeted in this way, when it appears likely that other, secular buildings are much more likely to be linked with terrorist activity. It does not believe that there is a significant problem in relation to places of worship being used to foment violent extremism.
5.1.2.There are about 40,000 Christian churches in Britain, of which 1750 are United Reformed churches (or churches in which a URC congregation has united with another from a different tradition). We are not aware of any suggestion of any of these being used to foment violent extremism. Indeed, we are aware of only one case in which it was suggested that a place of worship of another faith (the Finsbury Park mosque) was linked with terrorist activity; that was dealt with by the management committee of the mosque and by the use of existing legislation. This was an exceptional case, and law founded on exceptional cases is generally bad law.
5.1.3. It is possible that churches in Northern Ireland have been used for the promotion of violent extremism. This approach has not previously been used in Northern Ireland and we are not convinced that it would be the right approach now. (It is not clear whether the proposed legislation would extend to Northern Ireland).
5.1.4. Incitement to terrorism is propagated by people, not by places of worship or buildings of another kind. The closure of a church or mosque undermines the opportunity for worship by believers who have not engaged in any such incitement, and may be voices for moderation. The Muslim community, in particular, would be likely to interpret this as a restriction on Muslim worship; already strained relationships between secular authorities and the Muslim community could be further undermined. Closure of mosques – or the threat of closure – could increase Muslim suspicion of government motives. Good inter-faith relations suggest that , whilst those from a Christian background may be critical of some practices of some members of other faith communities, we should be critically supportive of them, as they deal with the issue of extremism in their midst.
5.1.5. People who attend United Reformed churches – and most Christian churches – are likely to be among those most active in working for peace and harmony within local communities, and church premises are an important resource for community-building. They are places where secular clubs, evening classes, sports activities, health clinics, playgroups, and gatherings of other faiths, will often take place alongside Christian worship and teaching.
5.2. Question B. What more could be done to support faith communities in preventing places of worship being used to foment extremism, short of taking additional powers?
5.2.1.There is some current evidence to suggest that young Muslims who are likely to be attracted to terrorist activity, are those who feel that they live between two cultures, and who are alienated from both. They have not engaged with the British education and employment system and see themselves as having no prospect of sharing the material wealth of others they see around them. Government needs to explore what more can be done to win the confidence of these young people.
5.2.2.There is a parallel with young people who are not from a minority ethnic group, who engage in anti-social and criminal behaviour – or are attracted to extreme groups such as the British National Party. They are often those who have failed to engage with school, who have poor employment prospects and who become resentful, because they do not see themselves as part of mainstream society. Government needs to continue its efforts to ensure that there is greater equality of opportunity for young people from all social, and ethnic backgrounds, and to make it easier for those who have failed to engage with school to get back into state-funded education later.
5.2.3. Progress in both these areas would support the efforts of faith communities to prevent their young people from engaging with anti-social, criminal or terrorist activity.
5.3. Question C. What are your views on the legislative proposal contained in paragraphs 17-22?
5.3.1. In the view of the United Reformed Church this is a wholly excessive and disproportionate response, which would give the government sweeping powers to deal with a problem that has not been demonstrated to exist.
5.3.2. The requirement upon “those controlling a place of worship” may be problematic within the United Reformed Church. Although elected and ordained elders make recommendation to the Church meeting, it is that meeting of all church members, which will elect elders, maintain standards of membership, suspend or remove names from the membership roll, and make – or provide for the making of – arrangements for the proper maintenance of buildings. (1). It is therefore possible, should a prosecution arise, that an entire roll of members of a place of worship could be prosecuted!.
5.3.3. If legislation is enacted, it could also have serious repercussions for Christians, as a minority group in other parts of the world. Terrorism is global and atrocities may not necessarily be carried out in the country where actions may have motivated the atrocity. We are concerned for our fellow believers in other parts of the world, and suffering which they may experience, as a consequence of perceived restrictions in Britain.
5.4. Question D. How is your place of worship defined in practice? Does it mean just the space used for preaching and prayer or does it include temporary meeting rooms or faith schools? Would similar powers be useful in respect of these places or other places which are not places of worship?
5.4.1. As indicated in response to Question A, Christian places of worship are likely to be places where many secular, as well as faith-based, activities take place in halls and meetings rooms attached to the worship area. However, worship may also take place in these ancillary rooms.
5.5. Question E. It is important that any power has appropriate safeguards. Application for a requirement order would require very senior authorisation in the police, and would need to be confirmed by a court. Is this sufficient, or would further safeguards be appropriate?
5.5.1. Our concerns are in no way diminished by the safeguards suggested. There is very recent evidence to show that, in a moment of crisis, even a very senior police officer can take actions which, with hindsight, seem excessive. After the shooting of an (innocent) terrorist suspect at Stockwell Underground Station in July 2005, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner sought to prevent an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission saying that the anti-terrorist operation being carried out at the time meant that police were in a “unique” situation. The consultation suggests that use of the power to tackle extremism at a place of worship would be a “last resort” (para.9) - presumably a “unique” last resort. We are concerned that too much responsibility may be placed upon the police in determining what amounts to “encouragement of terrorism”.
5.5.2. Although courts will doubtless seek to deal impartially with applications, our experience suggests that lay magistrates particularly, will give great weight to an application made for the protection of the public and to allow officers to continue their enquiries. Applications made for the continued detention of a suspect under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) would be an example of this. The consultation paper says nothing about whether applications for “Requirement” or “Restriction of Use” orders would be made in camera, as PACE applications, or in open court. Hearings in private would heighten concerns.
Rev. Martin Camroux Convenor, Church and Society committee
Rev. Dr. John Parry Convenor, Inter-Faith Relations committee
On behalf of the United Reformed Church 86 Tavistock Place London WC1H 9RT
Point of contact in the event of query: Stuart Dew, Secretary for Church and Society stuart.dew@urc.org.uk or tel. 020 7916 8632
1.
The Manual. United Reformed Church in the United Kingdom. ISBN
085346 179 1 |
Links: |