Eric Pickles on NSS council prayers campaign

Mouse commented before on the campaign by the National Secular Society to take on the religious zealots in the hotbed of fundamentalism at Bideford Council.  They have instructed lawyers to initiate a judicial review of whether their practice of saying prayers before council meetings is lawful.

Mouse thinks this is rather petty, particularly since it is entirely up to the council itself whether to say prayers or not, and it recently decided that it would like to.

The latest developments from the NSS is that they have instructed their lawyers to go to the High Court to seek a judicial review, and they are looking for a 'fighting fund' to pay for the case.  Mouse suggests there are better things to do with your money.

The NSS will now find themselves with at least one formidable opponent in the form of Conservative Party Chairman Eric Pickles.  Cranmer provides the quotes.

While I cannot comment on a specific court case, the new Government recognises and respects the role that faith communities play in our society.

Prayers are an important part of the religious and cultural fabric of the British nation.

While the decision on whether to hold prayers is a matter for local councils, I want to ensure that they continue to have the freedom to do so.

Well said Mr Pickles.

Mouse would also just like to point out the basis of the NSS claim that council prayers are illegal.  They claim it is contrary to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  This is rather amusing if you actually read the article, as it says that freedom to express religion should only be restricted under very limited circumstances.  Here it is for reference:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Presumably they are arguing that it impinges on the freedom of those who don't want to pray.  Mouse suggest that the ECHR was not written with the intention of protecting Bideford Councillors, and that they are perfectly free to not pray if they don't want to.  Mouse thinks they've got no chance.