Tuesday, July 29, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Council ban on atheist websites

by BBC

A city council has blocked its staff from looking at websites about atheism.

Lawyers at the National Secular Society said the move by Birmingham City Council was "discriminatory" and they would consider legal action.

The rules also ban sites that promote witchcraft, the paranormal, sexual deviancy and criminal activity.

The city council declined to comment on the possible legal action, but said the new system helped make it easier for managers to monitor staff web access.

'Very strong case'

The authority's Bluecoat Software computer system allows staff to look at websites relating to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religions but blocks sites to do with "witchcraft or Satanism" and "occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism".

Under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, it is unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their religion or belief, which includes atheism.

National Secular Society president Terry Sanderson said the city council's rules also discriminated against people who practise witchcraft, which is also classed as a legitimate belief.

He said the society would initially contact the council and ask for the policy to be changed, and otherwise pursue legal action.

He said he believed he would have a "very strong case".

Mr Sanderson said: "It is discriminatory not only against atheists but they also are banning access to sites to do with witchcraft.

"Witchcraft these days is called Wicca, which is an actual legitimate and recognised religion.

"We feel very strongly that people who don't believe should not be denied the access that people who do believe have got."

He added that some opinion polls said that up to 25% of the UK population now considered themselves atheist.

A city council statement said the authority had a "long-standing internet usage policy for staff".

It added: "We are currently implementing new internet monitoring software to make the control of internet access easier to manage.

"The aim of this is to provide greater control for individual line managers to monitor internet usage, and for departments, such as trading standards and child protection, to gain access, if needed, to certain sites for business reasons."

Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 122 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #221092 by Border Collie on July 29, 2008 at 10:32 am

... just gets sillier every day ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

2. Comment #221094 by Ishruul on July 29, 2008 at 10:34 am

Ah crap, witch hunt ahead!!!!

Other Comments by Ishruul

3. Comment #221095 by thewhitepearl on July 29, 2008 at 10:35 am

It is discriminatory not only against atheists but they also are banning access to sites to do with witchcraft.

Yes, I can see how they equate atheism and witchcraft.

But not religious websites huh?

it is unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their religion or belief, which includes atheism.

Belief, lack of belief, belief, lack of belief...hmm yeah atheism fits under belief alright.

I feel like I need blood pressure medicine right now. I guess I'll be the first to say it:

fucktards.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

4. Comment #221099 by mordacious1 on July 29, 2008 at 10:39 am

I think if they ban witches from certain sites, they should sic their flying monkeys on them. (fly my pretties, fly)

Other Comments by mordacious1

5. Comment #221100 by mordacious1 on July 29, 2008 at 10:41 am

twp

Atheists are right in there with criminal activities and sexual deviancy, too.

[edit] I couldn't work there. No illegal gambling, sexual deviancy, or atheism? What would I do all day.

Other Comments by mordacious1

6. Comment #221102 by Ishruul on July 29, 2008 at 10:42 am

See, I am a manager and I'll hit myself with a fucking baseball bat if I would dare to impose any kind of religious control over the employee.

The use of internet nowaday is the same as listening to the radio 2 decades ago. It was met with opposition but now, what kind of shopping mall doens't have a soundtrack. It is natural for the human specie to seek out informations (relevant or not) and trying to control it is futile.

And above all, illegal cause free speech and the right to education is kinda the main focuse of the Canadian and the U.S. constitution.

Other Comments by Ishruul

7. Comment #221103 by DamnDirtyApe on July 29, 2008 at 10:42 am

This better be some taffin fools idea of a joke.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

8. Comment #221104 by ksskidude on July 29, 2008 at 10:42 am

Why do people continually have to step on people's rights. Maybe they shouldn't be doing it at work, but to totally block them from viweing these wensite's is just ridiculous!

Other Comments by ksskidude

9. Comment #221105 by Tezcatlipoca on July 29, 2008 at 10:43 am

hmmm, does this mean they are blocked from rd.net! I'd be willing to donate a hellbore cannon or two for the cause...all other fictional armaments available at a generous discount.

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

10. Comment #221106 by Verylee on July 29, 2008 at 10:45 am

I guess for those who have lived sheltered lives, "Atheist" comes across as a a dirty word....I wonder if they would ban them from accessing "Secular" or "Free Thinkers" websites?....I wonder if many of them would even know what they meant! Atheists are such horrid people didn't you know!

Other Comments by Verylee

11. Comment #221110 by Steve Zara on July 29, 2008 at 10:46 am

This is incredibly stupid, but I can't see this lasting. There is no way they will be allowed to block, for example, the website of that nice Richard Dawkins who appeared on Dr Who.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

12. Comment #221111 by ksskidude on July 29, 2008 at 10:46 am

Oops I meant to write websites, not wensites! Idiot! Said in a 'Napoleon Dynamite' kind of voice!

Other Comments by ksskidude

13. Comment #221117 by Ishruul on July 29, 2008 at 10:53 am

I just thought of something. Can someone be more contradicting than this? Don't go on religious websites 'cause it's bad...and don't go on websites that piss on religion 'cause it's bad...m'kay!

Other Comments by Ishruul

14. Comment #221118 by mordacious1 on July 29, 2008 at 10:54 am

ksskidude

You probably also meant to write viewing, not viweing.

Other Comments by mordacious1

15. Comment #221122 by Peacebeuponme on July 29, 2008 at 10:58 am

Have to agree with Steve, this really won't last. Another good day for atheism. Religious bigotry has again been highlighted.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

16. Comment #221123 by felandath on July 29, 2008 at 11:00 am

Damn! I used to work for the Birmingham City Council. I remember them conducting a luncheon to celebrate faith based diversity with a special emphasis on Islam. And I remember how respectfully they tiptoed around Islam. This was around the time of the 7/7 bombings in London. Not one mention was made about how radical elements within the muslim community would be handled.

The BCC is heavily represented by Muslims. Wouldn't put it past them to influence a decision such as this. I being an atheist, who was born a Muslim, am not looked upon too kindly by my brethren, you see. :)

Other Comments by felandath

17. Comment #221124 by thewhitepearl on July 29, 2008 at 11:01 am

Atheists are right in there with criminal activities and sexual deviancy, too.

I know it's upsurd. Sometimes I wish I could carry around a stupidity bat, and have the ablity to transport myself. I'd spend my life dedicated to wacking stupidity out of people.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

18. Comment #221125 by ridelo on July 29, 2008 at 11:02 am

I'm utterly pleased to see that Pastafarianism escaped the auto da fé. Imagine no spaghetti. Horrible.

Other Comments by ridelo

19. Comment #221126 by Tezcatlipoca on July 29, 2008 at 11:03 am

TWP

the visual of you beating the stupidity out of people with the bat... I think my coworkers are reaching for the nets and jacket due to my inability to contain my chortling.

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

20. Comment #221129 by Elli on July 29, 2008 at 11:08 am

I imagine a very quick re-draft of the policy will be forthcoming, and maybe some poor performance reviews for the responsible drafters. What stupid lawyers sat down with their client's instructions to draft a policy including these terms and said to themselves "Sounds good, I see no problems here".

Other Comments by Elli

21. Comment #221130 by Ishruul on July 29, 2008 at 11:08 am

I've just receive a memo, It read as follow:

Dear jive suckers,

Since you all seem to acquire some sort of intelligence, our administration has seem fit to forbid any one of the company to read the news, watch tv or talk to anyone else beside your supervisor in hope to coerce you to think more 'in line of company's policy' or as you refer to 'the pussy policy'.

Thank you all and go back to your cubicle in hope that you regress back into the sheeple stade you were in earlier.

All suggestion can be toss in the carbage can has usual.

Other Comments by Ishruul

22. Comment #221131 by Quetzalcoatl on July 29, 2008 at 11:09 am

thewhitepearl-

I know it's upsurd. Sometimes I wish I could carry around a stupidity bat, and have the ablity to transport myself. I'd spend my life dedicated to wacking stupidity out of people.

I would pay good money to see that!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

23. Comment #221132 by Cartomancer on July 29, 2008 at 11:10 am

Wow. I first saw this on Pharyngula and didn't think it was a big deal. I assumed it was referring to Birmingham Alabama, or one of the other pseudo-Birminghams they doubtless have over the pond, not the real genuine and authentic black-country Birmingham itself. I could imagine the frothing fundamentalists of the bible belt doing this sort of thing, but the bureaucratic buffoons of the Meriden Gap?

I'm sure the dour, chip-munching, whippet-fancying northerners who inhabit that benighted realm won't put up with such nonsense for long.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

24. Comment #221133 by thewhitepearl on July 29, 2008 at 11:13 am

Tez, Quetz

True story, I beat the you know what out of two girls with a golf club once.

I realise the image may strike you as funny, it does me too, only because I would do it in true slapstick form.

I would appear out of the blue, walk up and first confirm that said person is the person i'm looking for and that they made said stupid comment, give em one (or a couple of good whacks) and then turn around and disappear.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

25. Comment #221134 by Ishruul on July 29, 2008 at 11:15 am

Curiusly enough, the muslim got their own version of the stupidity bat, it's the keep-people-in-ignorance-suicide-bomber.

Other Comments by Ishruul

26. Comment #221135 by Tezcatlipoca on July 29, 2008 at 11:15 am

I was raised on saturday morning looney toons so I appreciate the tasteful (grin) application of slapstick violence to the deserving.

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

27. Comment #221140 by TIKI AL on July 29, 2008 at 11:29 am

so ....Catholicalterboyporn.com; taboo, or not taboo?

pearl: If you visit Az, you may borrow my al-U-minny-um bat. Lots of bonafide targets within walking distance from my house!

Other Comments by TIKI AL

28. Comment #221142 by Steve Zara on July 29, 2008 at 11:31 am

Comment #221132 by Cartomancer

My dear fellow, Birmingham is not North. It is barely in the Midlands.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

29. Comment #221144 by Quetzalcoatl on July 29, 2008 at 11:34 am

True story, I beat the you know what out of two girls with a golf club once

Really?

- Backs away -

Did I mention that your latest avatar is very fetching?

- Breaks into a run -

:)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

30. Comment #221145 by mrjonno on July 29, 2008 at 11:35 am

The National Secular Society is mentioning atheism and witchcraft in the same sentence because it promotes wait for it Secularism not atheism. I believe it even has a few religious members. In this its entirely appropiate.

Other Comments by mrjonno

31. Comment #221150 by thewhitepearl on July 29, 2008 at 11:41 am

pearl: If you visit Az, you may borrow my al-U-minny-um bat. Lots of bonafide targets within walking distance from my house!

Don't tempt me. If there is something in my hand and you say something really stupid, I am very likely to hit you with it. Or throw it at you.

See like this comment

The National Secular Society is mentioning atheism and witchcraft in the same sentence because it promotes wait for it Secularism not atheism.I believe it even has a few religious members. In this its entirely appropiate.

Atheist are about as secular from religion as you can get.

[bat swing]

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

32. Comment #221152 by mordacious1 on July 29, 2008 at 11:45 am

twp

Glad I live several hundred miles away, or I'd be sliced into the rough in no time.

Other Comments by mordacious1

33. Comment #221154 by jimbob on July 29, 2008 at 11:47 am

witchcraft, priestcraft, imamcraft, rabbicraft, etc., what's the difference?

Other Comments by jimbob

34. Comment #221155 by Ascaphus on July 29, 2008 at 11:47 am

I just visited the home page for the Birmingham City Council, http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/ , and found no reference to 'faith,' 'religion,' 'church' or several other faith related terms. They must be an atheist organization, and would no longer be allowed to view their own web page. They would also be prohibited from viewing the weather channel, the corps of engineers, medical pages...

If people still think that atheism fits with "witchcraft, the paranormal, sexual deviancy and criminal activity" rather than with truly atheist ventures such as Nature magazine, medical associations, and the secular technology and government style that builds subways so that the religious can bomb them, then we haven't been doing our PR very well.

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

35. Comment #221157 by bertie wooster on July 29, 2008 at 11:48 am

I wonder how many Muslims or Christians were on the Council.

i) they must be rather worried about the triumph of reason if they banned atheist websites. Don't they have faith (!) in their own convictions?

ii) banning witchcraft sites is even more worrying, as they might just believe it works!

Other Comments by bertie wooster

36. Comment #221158 by rod-the-farmer on July 29, 2008 at 11:49 am

Grrr. OK for staff to look at religious websites during work, but not atheist sites. Grrr.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

37. Comment #221159 by thewhitepearl on July 29, 2008 at 11:52 am

Glad I live several hundred miles away, or I'd be sliced into the rough in no time.

Why would you say that?

I'm more afraid of you and that bus of yours.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

38. Comment #221166 by Bonzai on July 29, 2008 at 11:57 am

Surely the best thing to do would be to ban all websites that aren't directly related to your day of work?

Then we surly will never hear from Al_rawandi again.:)

Other Comments by Bonzai

39. Comment #221174 by popecorkyxxiv on July 29, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Is anyone really surprised an organisation in America would do somthing like this against 'anti-Christian' ideologies? They are the Christian Reich afterall, they even have a Nazi Pope. "Sieg Heil or see you in Hell" should be the new Christian motto!

Other Comments by popecorkyxxiv

40. Comment #221176 by Ascaphus on July 29, 2008 at 12:06 pm

40: It's not an American problem, it's a problem for all of civilisation.

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

41. Comment #221178 by Tezcatlipoca on July 29, 2008 at 12:06 pm

This is the "old country" Birmingham...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

42. Comment #221187 by faouloki on July 29, 2008 at 12:17 pm

But then the day would last forever!

Other Comments by faouloki

43. Comment #221191 by JAMCAM87 on July 29, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Comment #221123 by felandath

I just want to say that I admire you immensely for breaking free from Islam. I don't really know your circumstances but nevertheless I think you are very brave. WELL DONE!

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

44. Comment #221198 by heafnerj on July 29, 2008 at 12:23 pm

thewhitepearl:

What you call the stupidity bat is what I tell my students is the "gentle hand of reality reaching down to smack some sense into you." LOL

Seriously, I wonder if these people realize that, by their own policy, all sites related to the Bible would be blocked because it's full of witchcraft. I suppose not.

Other Comments by heafnerj

45. Comment #221209 by Dr Technical on July 29, 2008 at 12:36 pm

What are council workers doing looking at atheist, witchcraft, or religious web sites ?

I thought they were supposed to do something called "work" ;-)

Although it is annoying from a personal point of view, I can't see any reason why non-work related sites shouldn't be banned full stop.

Mind you our work is so retarded it bans work related sites as well !

PS if anyone thinks they have a right to look at non-work related sites at work, don't forget to invite the plumber around on £60 an hour to surf the net at your expense after he's fixed your leaky tap :-)

Other Comments by Dr Technical

46. Comment #221217 by Ascaphus on July 29, 2008 at 12:44 pm

46 Dr Technical: Uh, I believe the point is that he/she would be allowed to visit the religious web sites. It's not the banning that is discriminatory. Then there is the problem of just exactly what constitutes an 'atheist' website.

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

47. Comment #221219 by Steven Mading on July 29, 2008 at 12:45 pm

16. Comment #221123 by felandath on July 29, 2008 at 11:00 am
The BCC is heavily represented by Muslims. Wouldn't put it past them to influence a decision such as this. I being an atheist, who was born a Muslim, am not looked upon too kindly by my brethren, you see. :)

No, you were not born a Muslim. Nobody is. You wre born to Muslim parents. Remember that consciousness-raising about this point.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

48. Comment #221223 by Steven Mading on July 29, 2008 at 12:47 pm

46. Comment #221209 by Dr Technical on July 29, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Although it is annoying from a personal point of view, I can't see any reason why non-work related sites shouldn't be banned full stop.

If they also blocked Christian and Muslim websites that might have been a valid point to make. But when they only block for some viewpoints on religion and others, then clearly it's false to claim that work vs non-work sites was the criteria they used.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

49. Comment #221229 by Steven Mading on July 29, 2008 at 12:52 pm

There's one big detail missing in the report, and it's kind of important. Did the council of Birmingham explicitly set up a block against atheism or was it just the way the software came by default from the vendor and they didn't think to change it? If they just installed a standard blocker package out-of-the-box, many of them are merketed at religious parents and are set up the way they would like.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

50. Comment #221235 by mummymonkey on July 29, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Well I work in a UK Council's IT Dept. We have web filtering software (not the same one) and every single day get requests to allow such and such a person access to such and such a site. It's a pita.
"Lets block all sites about alcohol."
"Great, I'll get right on it"
"Hello this is the liquor licensing dept..."

"Lets block all sites about drugs."
"Great, I'll get right on it"
"Hello this is the Drug Dependency Unit..."

Etc, etc, etc.
As for not surfing at work, well that's just crazy talk. All kinds of research is done online, same as any other organisation. Besides, we are allowed breaks you know.

Other Comments by mummymonkey

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last