The hijab, the niqab and the burka – statements of faith are all well and good, but what if they are in breach of good manners?

There has been much political discussion recently about when and whether it is appropriate for women of Islamic faith to hide their faces.  Birmingham Metropolitan College attempted to ban the full-face veil or niqab, but pulled back from this rule.  The Liberal Democrat MP and Coalition Minister Jeremy Browne MP criticised the wearing of full-face veils and Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health has asked the NHS to look at its policy on dresscode, due to the feelings of disquiet some patients have when treated by a medical professional who keeps their face hidden from them.

The matter that sparked off this debate was when a defendant in a criminal trial wished to hide her face when in the box.  The judge required her to remove her veil when under examination, so that the jury could observe her facial expressions.  This seems a commonsense solution.  The defendant might have felt subject to unwanted scrutiny when her face could be seen, but when you are a defendant in a criminal trial that is an inevitable part of the process.

As a conservative who believes in freedom I would be very reluctant to follow the French example of banning the veil in public places.  France is an avowedly secularist country and can therefore consistently ban expressions of religious faith.  On these islands we are a free society with a Christian heritage.  To ban expressions of religious faith goes against the grain.  With an established church and Lords Spiritual in the upper house, religious faith is woven into the fabric of our constitution.  And so is freedom.  Not the French idea of freedom based around secularist ideology, but the freedom to be left alone – an Englishman’s home is his castle, as the expression goes.

The trouble is when a very different culture is grafted on to a longstanding society such as ours that is based on unspoken norms of behaviour, there can be cultural clashes and misunderstandings.  Yes we are a free society, but we achieve that by giving each other space and not forcing our opinions on each other.

The veil adopted by some Muslim women is a strong and uncompromising expression of religious opinion.  In a free society it should not be banned, but the blogger questions whether the veil is actually the sartorial equivalent of forcing your opinions on others.  It creates an awkward social situation just as someone talking about religion and politics down the pub makes for an unpleasant atmosphere.  It steps over a certain boundary and while strictly-speaking it is simply an individual choosing how they dress, it is really a non-verbal statement and creates a physical barrier.  To put it bluntly, in ordinary every day life, the veil can be perceived by non-Muslims as crossing the boundary into bad manners.

In our culture it is good manners to look a person in the face when you speak to them.  I do not condemn recent immigrants who have not yet adjusted to Western society.  Rather, the fault lies with those in the political class and liberal elite who close down debate about the veil in the name of that chimera the multicultural society.  This means people new to our society do not appreciate how many of us are made to feel awkward by the hiding of the face. 

I am sure there are good cultural reasons in Muslim countries for the veil – I do not presume to say otherwise. The flipside of this is that to help the new immigrant societies to integrate they should be helped to understand that the hiding of the face in our culture sends a very different message. 

Many would argue that it is up to us to be tolerant of this choice of dress.  In terms of the law I agree; it is not for the state to criminalise dress.  It is however, the role of society to nurture good manners.  To give a less controversial example - Perhaps in some cultures the physical contact of a man’s and a woman’s hand through the handshake would be unacceptable.  In our culture to decline the handshake would seem bad manners.

A blanket ban, outside of the workplace, is not right in a free society; however, the blogger cannot see anything wrong with requiring employees or students to dress in a way compatible with those institutions' dress codes.  In the health service, when people are often feeling vulnerable and are unwell or in pain it seems very sensible to ban the full-face veil.

Interaction between people is enhanced by facial expressions.  You can tell how someone is reacting to what you say.  It is about being able to engage fully.  If immigrant communities dispensed with the veil it would make it all the easier for stronger bonds to be built with individuals of the indigenous community.    

A Guide to the Reform of the House of Lords (originally published on Respublica's Disraeli Room on 16th January 2012)

The composition of the upper house of Parliament has been under question for some time and yet still the question has not been answered.  There have been piecemeal reforms, such as the passing of the two Parliament Acts, the introduction of Life Peers and the removal of the vast majority of hereditary peers, but still the questions are asked.  The Coalition Government has now published a draft House of Lords Reform Bill.

Current Composition

The vast majority of peers are now life peers.  The total number of members of the House of Lords is 788 active members.  This number is divided into 26 Lords Spiritual (Bishops of the Church of England) and the remaining 762 are Lords Temporal.  Of the Lords Temporal there are 92 hereditary peers who have inherited their seats to the Lords and the remainder are life peers, whose seats are removed at their death.

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of life peers under the current Coalition Government.  Since May 2010 there have been 117 peerages created.

There is a mechanism for replacing hereditaries when they pass away.  A by-election is held among the hereditaries (both those sitting and those who have lost their automatic right to sit voting).  The winner replaces his deceased colleague.

History

The House of Lords is the upper house of Parliament and originally was only composed of Lords Spiritual (the bishops) and the Lords Temporal (senior aristocrats).  It emerged in a recognisable form during the Fourteenth Century.  Historically it was more powerful than the Commons, whose members represented the interests of the shires and boroughs.

Under the Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell, along with the Monarchy the House of Lords was abolished.  With the Restoration of Monarchy and Lords a more gradual evolution took place, which saw the diminishing of the power of the Lords and the growth in the power of the Commons.

In the early Twentieth Century the Commons cemented its supremacy with the passing of the 1911 Parliament Act.  This legislation was in response to the landed interest represented in the Lords resisting the Liberal Government’s Budget, which included a heavy tax on the landed interest.  Under the threat of the Lords being flooded with new Liberal peers, the Lords gave way and accepted the Parliament Act.

Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949

Money bills to become law automatically if not passed by the Lords within one month.

Other bills can be forced through the Lords if rejected three times (provided two years had passed since the Second reading).

This time was to be shortened to two sessions by the Parliament Act 1949.

Further reforms have also affected the Lords.  Life peers were created by the Life Peerages Act 1958.  The House of Lords Act 1999 took away the right of most hereditaries to sit in the house, with only 92 allowed to remain until an obscure second stage of reform took place.

The Law Lords lost their place in the Lords and the Lord Chancellor his role as speaker of the House as a result of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.  As a result the House of Lords is no longer the highest court in the land.  Many of these changes were criticised for having no overall purpose and unpicking the constitutional settlement.

Role of the Lords

The role of the Lords, like that of many British institutions, has evolved rather than been planned.  It has not had its role determined by experts sitting down and working out what it should be; rather it has filled the necessary gaps and provided the function of a revising chamber filled with experts, senior politicians and spiritual and legal leaders.

It sees its purpose as enabling the Commons to think again.  It has no right to override the supremacy of the Commons, but it generally achieves its purpose of considering issues away from the heat of partisan debate with more independence of thought and expertise.  The question therefore left begging is why change it?

Current Proposals

To an extent the argument for reform is that the need has arisen almost by accident.  A system that worked well has been unpicked almost in a fit of absence of mind as New Labour tinkered with the constitution to suit its short-term political needs.

Therefore the scenario presents itself as to what should this second stage of reform be?  The Government itself in its draft bill has left many options open.

It is proposed to have either an 80% elected or a 100% elected Upper Chamber.  Peers would be elected for fifteen year terms and be unable to stand again.  If the 80% option is chosen twelve of the current 26 Lords Spiritual would remain.  With the 100% option they would all be lost.

The case for reform is that Great Britain’s bicameral system is unusual in that it is unelected.  It is also argued that an elected Lords would have more legitimacy and therefore be better able to hold the Commons to account.

The dangers of reform are that the House becomes more partisan, loses its expert and spiritual elements, is made up of politicians who could not make it into the Commons and that it challenges the supremacy of the Commons (the flipside of the argument for an elected chamber).

When embarking upon constitutional reform it is vital that debate is considered and informed.  As the Commons makes up its mind on the 80% or 100% option it must ask the question: What is the purpose of the Lords?  We do not have a written constitution and rather like the Monarchy, the role of the Lords has evolved.  Therefore MPs must look at the current situation to see what the Lords actually does and then ask themselves will current reforms enhance that role or diminish it.  In essence, through evolution, the Lords has become a revising expert chamber, with a strong spiritual and legal input.  Will 80% or 100% elected peers further this equilibrium or hinder it?

- See more at: http://www.respublica.org.uk/item/A-Guide-to-the-Reform-of-the-House-of-Lords

The Point of the Lords Spiritual (originally published on Respublica's Disraeli Room on 29th March 2012)

The bishops in the Lords have in recent years become far more active, the intention being to demonstrate that they do have a vital role in the constitution. Government proposals involve two options, one to retain twelve of the twenty-six bishops and the other to expel them altogether.

Writing for ResPublica’s essay collection on Lords Reform “Our House: Reflections on Representation and Reform in the House of Lords”, the Bishop of Leicester, the Convenor of the Lords Spiritual, has argued that they are representative of the regions, with church parishes across the nation. In a Parliament that is very focused on London, they bring a regional and localist perspective that should be welcomed; surely this is an example of localism embedded into the constitution. The bishops are more representative of the whole of Britain than MPs and peers. The argument made by some, such as Theos, that more specialised, political Lords Spiritual, less focused on the diocese, would diminish that “rootedness” in the regions.

Furthermore the interests that they represent are those of the voluntary sector so vital to civil society. If British society is to be reinvigorated by turning more to the little platoons that make up the Big Society, the leaders of the faith groups, which make up such a strong part of that Big Society, must have a place. So why remove them from the role in the legislature that our history has given them?

Reform Proposals and the Dangers of a Reductive Policy of Equality

The presence of Church of England Bishops is often criticised as discriminating against other faiths and humanists. But the Church of England itself is on record as not opposing in principle other denominations or faith groups having appointees on the Bishops’ Bench. Just as for historic reasons Church of England Bishops sit in the Lords, so for historic reasons representatives of the established Church of Scotland never sat in the Upper House. History has presented us with the House of Lords as it is and has given us the Lords Spiritual who fulfill a useful role.

Furthermore, while there are no rabbis and no imams in the Lords ex officio (it must be remembered that the mechanism of creating a life peerage remains for luminaries of other religious traditions), it would seem to be cutting one’s nose off to spite one’s face to expel bishops simply in adherence to an abstract theory of equality. No one would gain, but all denominations and faiths would be the losers. Other faith groups generally welcome the contribution the bishops make (as can be seen by the contributions of faith leaders to the Joint Committee). It is not straightforward practically to select representatives of other faiths acceptable to all strands of those faiths, but, there are very specific and strong reasons why the Anglican leaders should have a place in the Lords – they represent the established church, they have been there historically and they can bring a spiritual dimension to debate that is welcomed by other faith groups.

But aren’t they out of touch?

In a study for its report “Coming off the Bench”, Theos found that the bishops had been voting and attending debates more often in recent days, but that they rarely voted en bloc and seemed to see their role as one of witness rather than to alter the course of legislation. For example on welfare reform, the bishops have been more willing to speak out and vote. This has been welcomed by some, but strongly criticized by those who feel popular government policies are being delayed.

However, whether one agrees with the bishops on the specifics of a particular issue, their role in the House of Lords cannot be to follow the short-term opinion polls. They are not elected and must therefore be there to come at matters from another angle than the current fashion of opinion. If the role of the Upper House overall is to give the Commons the opportunity to think again, the role of the Lords Spiritual is surely to enable that reflection to take place informed by a spiritual and Christian angle.

Not only Leaders of the Established Church

Our stable and evolved constitution has provided us with an Upper House made up of bishops in addition to peers. Is it right that the bishops should have a say because they lead the national Christian church? As the established Church, the Church of England is there for everyone, not just those who can recite the Nicean Creed. According to the Church of England, three out of ten people in England regard themselves as being Anglican and six out of ten regard themselves as Christian.

But there is much more to their role than this: The bishops do not just speak for the Church of England and are there by right as Lords Spiritual not Church of England delegates. Not only do the Lords Spiritual keep Christianity in the public square, they represent the concerns of other faith groups and even non-faith groups. The Bishops represent a great diversity of groups, in particular civic society and the local regions; they are not simply speaking for the established church. They ensure more than a short-termist, secularist or populist view dominates debate. This is to the benefit of the nation, whether we always agree with what they say or not.

• S

- See more at: http://www.respublica.org.uk/item/The-Point-of-the-Lords-Spiritual

The New Archbishop: A Counter-Cultural First Among Equals (Originally published on Respublica's Disraeli Room on 16 November 2012

With the decision that Justin Welby is to be enthroned as the next Archbishop of Canterbury, it is worth reassessing the value of the role. This is one of the most historic offices of the land, along with that of Monarch and Lord Chancellor. The Archbishop precedes the Lord Chancellor and Prime Minister in order of precedence, but is this merely a historical anomaly? Does the Archbishop as the primus inter pares of the established church still have relevance in twenty-first century Britain?

This article argues that the office of Archbishop could not be more relevant today.  It may help first to set out what the role of the Archbishop is, how he exercises his authority and thereby correct some misapprehensions to assess the utility of this ancient office

The Archbishop has a multi-faceted role.  He is President of the worldwide Anglican Communion, first among the Bishops of the established Church of England as Primate of All England, Metropolitan Bishop of the Province of Canterbury (thirty dioceses) and diocesan Bishop of Canterbury. He sits by right as a Lord Spiritual in the legislature along with York, London, Durham and Winchester; the other twenty-one are there on the basis of seniority.  The current Convenor of the Lords Spiritual is not however the Archbishop, but the Bishop of Leicester.

The authority the Archbishop exercises in these roles is not that of a chief executive – he is not a Prime Minister exercising the Royal Prerogative or a Pope with papal infallibility.  The only two roles in which the Archbishop can exercise executive power are in the See of Canterbury, when he is acting as a diocesan bishop and as Metropolitan Bishop of the Province of Canterbury. In every other aspect of his office his authority rests on intangibles and concepts that are, it must be conceded, somewhat out of fashion.

As the lead bishop of the Anglican Church he is primus inter pares – first among equals.  Rather like the old concept of cabinet government, he exercises his authority through the respect in which his office is held.  The bishops therefore operate in a very different way from the world of business or politics. It is the contention of this article that this is no bad thing, but it does lead to misunderstandings as to why the Archbishop does not seem to set a clear public position for the Church. 

He is not of course the head of the church, that is Christ; but, neither is he the Supreme Governor, for that role falls to the Queen. This is of course a complicated picture, but the reason it works is because it depends upon values and ways of behaviour different from the unambiguous accountability of the world of elected politicians (which when choosing the government of the nation is of course the fundamental principle upon which legitimacy must rest). The Archbishop is not fulfilling the same role as an elected government and his authority does not derive from a bottom-up election so much, as accountability to God.

A close analogy can here be drawn with the role of the Monarchy. The Queen looks for legitimacy to history and a coronation ceremony that emphasised her accountability to God.  If the legitimacy of the Monarchy simply rested on accountability in the same way as elected governments then we would hold elections for the Head of State.  While this is the process elsewhere, there is broad agreement that for reasons of history and emotional attachment, that is not how the British Head of State is chosen. Precisely because the Monarch is not chosen in that way, she is part of the social glue that holds society together.

The Archbishop can only command authority by relying on similar claims of legitimacy.  He cannot claim to have won an election via universal suffrage. No, he relies on what are now counter-cultural concepts of deference, tradition and answerability to the Almighty.  Indeed both Monarch and Archbishop derive legitimacy from the ultimate top-down authority and are very unfashionably not based on the bottom-up approach.  And that is a good thing, because it ensures the persistence of important values that an individualistic analysis does not comprehend.  Duty, faithfulness, selflessness, patriotism are all values not recognised in a world-view that sees life as the individual achieving his own satisfaction.

The political class now looks only to different interpretations of individualism making the Monarch and Archbishop’s roles difficult concepts to grasp. The public, however, as demonstrated by the recent Jubilee celebrations does intuitively get it! Politicians meanwhile seem preoccupied with people having a right to do what they want regardless of the impact on institutions – the arguments for gay marriage are a case in point, where an individual wanting to have something trumps the damage to the institution of marriage, despite marriage being part of that social glue so vital to civil society. The nature and role of the Archbishop means by definition he asserts values contrary to the entitlement agenda of left-wing equalities and rights ideology.

On the right commentary seems to have narrowed conservative thinking to being little more than pro-market ideology. Once Conservatism was about so much more and certainly involved the conserving of those institutions that hold the nation together.  When looking through such a narrow prism of the market being the answer to everything it is no longer possible to articulate arguments in favour of Monarchy, Church and nation.  

The Archbishop therefore has an important role in national life, to act as a custodian and advocate for older and more selfless values. This is not a left or right wing position. It challenges politicians across the spectrum to take into account that there is much more to our nation’s values than the narrow ideological critiques that either look to the market or entitlement to equality at the expense of the social fabric. In the current climate of secularist individualism this is quite simply counter-cultural.

- See more at: http://www.respublica.org.uk/item/The-New-Archbishop-A-counter-cultural-first-among-equals

Defending the Institution of Marriage (Originally published on Respublica's Disraeli Room on 18th December 2012)

To the political class redefining marriage to include same-sex unions is a straightforward matter of furthering the progressive-equality agenda - they are deaf to any contrary arguments. The issue is however worthy of debate, even if debate slows down the politicians’ goal of changing marriage. Indeed, many politicians (though not all) acknowledge the importance of marriage as a cornerstone of society. 

The Government consultation presumed that same-sex marriage should be implemented and that the only acceptable discussion was how to go about delivering this, rather than whether this change should take place. Nonetheless, despite the Government’s attempt to restrict debate (leading to some Conservative backbenchers calling the consultation a ‘sham’), the Church of England’s response to the consultation helpfully sets out the case against redefining marriage.

Marriage is the institution through which society addresses the difference between the sexes and brings about the benefit of that complementarity. Referring to the Book of Common Prayer, which follows Scripture, three virtues can be identified that are promoted by marriage: mutuality, fidelity and complementarity. The third of these virtues holds the potential to lead to fruitfulness. The purpose of marriage is then to bring the two sexes into complementarity, with the high possibility of children being conceived and brought up in that stable framework. 

Civil partnerships, recently introduced (and supported by the majority of Lords Spiritual), establish in other relationships mutuality and fidelity, but the key distinguishing feature is that civil partnerships are not there to address sexual difference.  Only marriage does this and it is therefore a uniquely heterosexual institution.  To change this defining aspect of marriage would undermine society’s way of singling out heterosexual commitment in a way that sustains a fundamental benefit to society – the biological family.

The Omni-shambles

The first sign of confusion came with the Prime Minister’s announcement that there would be an ‘opt-in’ for those faiths wishing to perform same sex marriages; contrary to the original commitment this would only apply to civil marriage.

In an attempt to push its agenda through and address the concerns of the established church, the Government’s official statement to Parliament has only muddied the waters further. The Minister announced that a ‘quadruple lock’ would protect the established church and others that wish to carry on solemnising marriages according to their own tradition and doctrine, free from threat of legal action.

The quadruple lock:

• Ensures that no religious organisations or ministers can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises.
• Provides an opt-in system.
• Amends the Equality Act 2010 so that discrimination claims cannot be brought.
• Ensures that legislation will not affect the canon law of the Church of England or the Church in Wales. 

The purpose of the fourth lock is not actually to “ban” the established church from opting in, but to ensure that there is no conflict between canon law and statute, which would bring about a constitutional contradiction.  So by stating that the Government would make same-sex marriage “illegal” for the Church of England to opt in the Minister was simply wrong, which led to mistaken media-commentary about the Church of England being banned from opting in to same-sex marriage. 

To “opt in” the Church of England would legislate in Synod, producing a Measure (the equivalent of an Act of Parliament). Synod Measures require parliamentary consent and the Synod's powers include the ability to amend Westminster legislation, as the Church pointed out in a briefing note to MPs “it would not require separate, additional legislation on the part of Parliament to enact any change to the Church's practice on marriage… For Parliament to give the Church of England an opt-in to conduct same sex marriages that it hasn't sought would be unnecessary, of doubtful constitutional propriety and introduce wholly avoidable confusion.” 

At the same time the Government did not appear to understand the unique position of the Church of Wales, which it wrongly described as ‘established’. It is proposed to make it subject to the lock; but, while it retains the power to license marriages, being disestablished it cannot initiate legislation if it wishes ever to opt in. Therefore, while religious freedom is protected for the established church in England, the religious freedom of the non-established Anglican Church in Wales risks being curtailed.

In any event, the consequence of these proposals would be for the state, for the first time ever, to redefine the nature of marriage and thereby create two types of marriage. Marriage as we know it to be for millennia, protected by the churches, and a new sort of marriage, administered by the State, the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism. The majority of faiths would thereby continue with marriage between man and woman, while the rest of the country would go down its own route, breaking the single institution of marriage into the status quo (maintained by churches) and a new form of marriage for those married outside most churches.

Let the Country Decide

Worse, as many signatories across all parties have put in an open letter to the Telegraph, this attack on an ancient institution has no democratic mandate.  There was no clear commitment in the governing parties’ manifestos. The petition of some 600 thousand plus to retain the current definition of marriage appears to have been ignored as part of the consultation.  The polls are ambiguous as to whether a majority favour this proposal.  Surely, without a mandate and for such a controversial change the public should decide.  Otherwise many will feel the new marriage has been imposed upon them.

While the political and media class may see this as a mere tidying up exercise to complete the equalities agenda, this is exceptionally controversial for many voters. If David Cameron wants to prove politicians aren't out of touch on this issue, and if he wants the policy to have full public backing, he should put his idea to the country in a referendum.

- See more at: http://www.respublica.org.uk/item/Defending-the-Institution-of-Marriage