If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Bideford Town Council prayers ruled unlawful
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16980025
Should councils be allowed to pray at meetings?
Or is this kind of leftover from Victorian society unacceptable in today's multicultural Britain?
Personally, I'm surprised this has gone to the courts. It annoys me that there are some extreme atheist busybodies who don't have the manners or patience to sit through a bit of religious mumbo-jumbo.
On the other hand, they may have a point in keeping religion out of politics. Last time I checked, we still had Bishops in the house of Lords.
Should councils be allowed to pray at meetings?
Or is this kind of leftover from Victorian society unacceptable in today's multicultural Britain?
Personally, I'm surprised this has gone to the courts. It annoys me that there are some extreme atheist busybodies who don't have the manners or patience to sit through a bit of religious mumbo-jumbo.
On the other hand, they may have a point in keeping religion out of politics. Last time I checked, we still had Bishops in the house of Lords.
0
Comments
Seems to be no issue having a prayer straight before hand.
Prayers are ridiculous, this is 2012
At best though the victory is pyrrhic - he won on the technicality the Local Government Act 1972 (which regulates how council must run their meetings) doesn't include a space for prayers, making it them technically illegal. However, the recent Localism Act will (once the provisions are entacted) allow authorities much greater freedom to run their meetings as they see fit, and that will include space for prayers if the members want it.
This.
I imagine because now they've stopped they can't remember why they were doing it in the first place and probably feel a bit foolish about the whole thing
From what I've heard they're waiting for the relevant bits of the Localism Act to be enacted so they can reinstate the prayers (that they voted twice to keep).
While I think they are being deliberately inflexible about this, there's no doubt the prayers were supported by the majority of members. But the wider question is how far courts should be able to overule the decisions of democratic bodies (even piddling little parish councils) - especially as it wasn't on Human Rights grounds but on a technical reading of the Local Govt Act 1972, which will soon be outdated by the Localism Act 2012.
I would also challenge the assertion that a local government is a democratic body.
I'd agree the legality of local authority derives from central Govt (the Queen and Parliament created them and the Queen and Parliament can dissolve them albeit they need legislation to do so).
But central Government can't require local authorities to do what it likes (at least without legislation and even then the legislation is often 'you must provide' but doesn't say how and how much) (much to my constant professional displeasure I probably should add). However local authorities are legally independent from central Government with their officers responsible to members.
It's worth pointing out as well that independence is going to be further enhanced as legislation has been passed which will allow authorities to do anything they want as long as its not illegal (the general power of competence)
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1896534.pdf (p4)
I'd be interested in why you think LAs aren't democratic bodies. They may have low voter turnout, but no-one is stopped from voting for them
I can't be sure, but my reading is that he tried to deal with it internally and there was not one, but two votes, by the council which outvoted him. He then tries to overturn the democratic decision... so I have zero sympathy and I think 'militant atheist' is being kind... self-important prig would be more apt (and again I'm being kind)
However, as G-raffe says, the councillors could have easily moved the prayers to before official proceedings with no real difficulty - so I've limited sympathy for them (though more so than for the people who try to overturn the democratic will of a council)
My guess, and its only a guess, is that he's one of these characters so wrapped up their own righteousness is that he wound up the rest of the councillors so much that they voted to keep the prayers, not because Bideford is a hotbed of fanatical Christianity, but simply to spite a rather vexatious litttle man.
I'd be interested to know how much this has cost, my feeling is that Bideford Council (which I think has a total of two employees) could probably have made better use of its resources
I'd agree that no-one comes out well but the interesting part of the story (to me anyway) is the wider question of when can courts overule the democratic decision of councils, irrelevant of what the decision is. I'd feel the same if the judge had forced a council to instate prayers if a majority had voted against having them.
So democracy is ok until something is voted for that you don't agree with?
On certain issues, yes. Hence why most countries have a constitution that prevents certain things from happening even if they would probably win a popular vote. To turn the question around, I suppose you think that rape would be acceptable as long as enough people voted to make it legal? Of course you don't.
Tacit in your assertion is that I think democracy is in some way sacrosanct and would espouse it if it produced a position I favoured. I don't and I don't think I would. Given 10 minutes we could sit down and produce an extensive list of either illegal, immoral or ridiculous analogous motions Bideford Town Council could had voted in favour of. As IWS says, many a country recognises the fact that popular opinion is just that and protects against it.
The theory is they were praying for divine wisdom in their deliberations, so prayers would need to be before the meeting to have any practical use.
ETA: Just noticed the obligatory Dawkins' quote in the right-hand column. Tres original.
Hardly the same thing though. Ultimately though, you have to look at how much time and money has been wasted on this entire thing. The councillor who brought the prosecution should be criticised and the council should be as well for digging it's heels in. I mean ffs, the prayers lasted for what, 30 seconds? Was it really that big of a deal? No. And for that reason the council could have moved it to 30 seconds before the meeting started.
Also what is this the BBC are reporting about a "Militant secularisation threat to religion"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831
Has anyone stopped to think about why church numbers are down compared to what they used to be? The church still holds (or at least it thinks it does) a significant amount of power, considering these days I don't think that many people actually care about religion. When I say don't care, I dont mean dislike or anything negative, just indifferent.
He was justified in bringing it to a vote. He lost the vote, so he should have left it their.
What they were doing was unlawful and voting on it was completely by-the-by. They could have been murdering tramps and voting on whether Scrappy or Dog-end was for the chop next, to the same end.
As I think we can all agree that murdering tramps is wrong the question is whether a technical issue should trump democratic votes. I don't think that it should, you do.
Especially as he didn't bring the cases on whether the council had powers to include prayers or nt, but that his human rights were being infringed (which he lost). The biggest irony is that the Localism Act will allow authorities to add prayers if they want (under their power of competence) so even his 'victory' is short lived. I think that's a good thing and that the will of the elected councillor prevails, whatever I think of whether prayers should be said or not (I don't care, though if you can sit through hours of council business you have the stamnina to sit through 30 seconds of prayers)
While I'll concede that murdering tramps was largely for my own wine-fuelled amusement, if you switch 'technical issue' with 'the law', which is what it was, then yeah, that's where I stand.
I think we're largely in agreement here. Bemoaning that your human rights are being violated because you've got to listen to the Old Schoolers make sectarian propitiations before meetings makes you look like a cock-end.
Maybe they will be able to get prayers back in, it wouldn't surprise. What was heartening to see was that someone in the past had had the mind to ensure that a publicly funded council involved in making decisions potentially affecting all the local public should be a secular environment free of partisan ritual. Freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion; I'm happy for people to lay prostrate at the feet if whichever deity they choose, just on their own time and dime.
Rotten Boroughs is full of councils who win votes that are somewhat less than moral, ethical or legal.
As you were.
And once or twice every couple of months Rotten Boroughs is vaguely accurate. However, unless you've got something about whether Bideford Town Councils votes is this case were dodgy, I don;t see what your comment adds to the party. And if you do have something specific throw it in - if new information becomes available my mind is open to be being changed.
I think we're largely in agreement, as you say. However, my reading (and I admit I haven't looked at the Act itself, but I do have a general understanding) is that it is less that there is a specific clasue saying no prayers, but there is no clause that says you can have prayers and the judge decided the council were exceeding their powers (as a good civil servant I should say 'acting ultra vires' to suggest I have some knowledge of latin, even though I haven't )
I've no problem with the legal decision as a legal decision, I'm the Judge was right on the law as it stands. My issue is more that the law can overturn democratic decisions where there is no human rights issue or conflict with specific laws and this is as much a general concern as it is for this case.