Tomorrow, 25th October, four Members of Parliament , Paul Holmes, Evan Harris (my own MP), Graham Allen and Colin Challen, will move an amendment to the charities bill, to give charities that seek to advocate a humanist world view PARITY with those that seek to advance a religious one. At present, religious institutions have a fast track to charitable tax status, and the four MPs are seeking to give humanist institutions the same.

If you agree with the four MPs (for details see the briefing below, supplied by the British Humanist Association), please write your own MP an e-mail urging him/her to support the amendment being moved by the four MPs. Unfortunately there is no time for an ordinary letter. It is e-mail or nothing.

To find your own MP's e-mail address, go to http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm

Thank you

Richard Dawkins



BHA BRIEFING 2006/14: THE CHARITIES BILL

Briefing for Commons Report Stage & Third Reading (25/10/06)

The Government is insisting on wording in the Charities Bill that serious discriminates against non-religious lifestances such as Humanism.

The wording comes in the definition of what is charitable. It has failed to give any justification for the discrimination, which can easily be put right. The consequences will be much more than symbolic: real detriment will be caused for humanist organisations.

The head of charity in clause 2(2)(c) of the Bill is "the advancement of religion". It should be expanded to "the advancement of religion or belief", with a sub-clause defining "belief" in terms of the Human Rights Act. Only if non-religious beliefs are coupled with religions (instead of being left to the rag-bag in 2(2)(l) can damaging and discriminatory treatment be avoided.

Similarly at clause 2(2)(h) the list of charitable purposes includes 'the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity'. This reflects a recent decision by the Charity Commission but the Commission subsequently accepted that 'religious harmony' had to be interpreted as embracing non-religious '"beliefs" as defined in human rights case law' and 'the promotion of harmony between believers and non-believers'. The Bill should reflect this already established practice.

The British Humanist Association has argued for equal treatment since the Cabinet Office report in 2001 that preceded the Bill but has never obtained any explanation for the discriminatory treatment of non-religious beliefs, only highly dubious assurances that no damage will be done.

These are the key points of principle in our case:

- Equal treatment is guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998, which bans legal or official discrimination on grounds of 'religion or belief'.

- 'Belief' in this context has a narrow meaning, as established by case law: it includes non-religious lifestances such as Humanism but excludes political and other everyday beliefs. By contrast the definition of 'religion' is wide and includes atheist and polytheist religions.

- Relegating non-religious belief systems to the rag-bag head implies that they are not equivalent in kind or in value to religions.

The Government's assurances that in practice no detriment will follow from this discriminatory treatment are not justified:

- Under clause 2(2)(l) humanist organisations can qualify as charities only if their objects are based on some formula such as 'mental and moral improvement of mankind' - simple advancement of Humanism will not qualify, whereas simple advancement of any religion whatever automatically gains prima facie qualification.

- The test of public benefit when applied to religions is likely to mean nothing: the Minister, Ed Miliband, said in the Second Reading debate that "public benefit must be shown, but ..., at least for religion, the obligation will not be onerous." An exploratory consultation at the Charity Commission on 28 September found that defining the public benefit provided by the advancement of religion was next to impossible.

- In contrast the Charity Commission continues to make it very onerous for humanist charities to prove public benefit. In a recent case it took the Rationalist Association two years: after nine months it redrafted its proposed objects to follow closely the wording used by already registered charities but it was still subjected to another fifteen months of detailed questioning before it was approved.

- In any case a separate body of administrative precedent will build up over time in the Charity Commission since it is plain that cases dealing with non-religious beliefs will not be dealt with by the same staff or in the same context as those about religion. This can only be unfavourable to charities based on non-religious lifestances.

- The Bill as drafted undermines the non-discriminatory approach adopted in other legislation (e.g., the Communications Act at sn 264, the Employment Equality Regulations and the Equality Bill) and the acceptance that public authorities must not discriminate on grounds of religion or belief under the ECHR and HRA.

The Charity Commission's own attitude is shown by its assertion, in correspondence over the Rationalist Association case that "the promotion of Rationalism and Humanism in themselves . . .is not a charitable activity". (A chronology of this case appears at the end of this briefing.) Would the Commission ever write to a Christian charity that "the promotion of Christianity in itself . . .is not a charitable activity"? We believe that this is the clearest demonstration of blatant discrimination against non-religious beliefs by the Commission and of the need for the Bill to bring religious and non-religious beliefs together under the same head so as to deter to some extent at least such detrimental treatment of humanist charities in future.

Our case is supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (20th report 2003/04): 'compliance with Article 9 and Article 14 could best be achieved by amending clause 2(2)(c) to include the advancement of both religion and belief'.

At Report tomorrow, the following amendments (123, 124 and 125) will be moved by Paul Holmes, Evan Harris, Graham Allen and Colin Challen. Please do signify to them that you support them.

123 In clause 2(2)(c) for 'religion' substitute 'religion or belief'

124 In subsection 2 (3) add 'in section 2 (2) (c) "belief" is to be construed consistently with schedule 1, article 9, to the Human Rights Act 1998'

125 in clause 2(2)(h) for 'the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity' substitute 'the promotion of harmony or equality between races, religions and beliefs'.

Alternatively, if the Government really believes that non-religious beliefs do not need explicit inclusion in the Bill, why does religion? Surely it too is covered by 2(2)(l) and clause 2(2)(c) can safely be deleted?