Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: The Accountant, OBE, KC on January 09, 2021, 10:27:31 AM
-
A Human Rights political issue about the right to conduct funeral rites in accordance with religious beliefs. Against WHO recommendations, the Sri Lankan government has had a forced cremation policy since April 2020. I appreciate some people on here may not care what happens to a family member's body after the person dies and may think this a fuss over superstitious beliefs. Based on Brexit and other issues, political beliefs seem to also acquire a similar level of sacredness in people's minds - beliefs about souls or sovereignty and patriotism seem to evade agreed definition but have led to violent conflict.
In Sri Lanka, the authorities take away the dead body for testing for Covid-19, and the deceased's family are told to pay for the cremation if the test comes back positive, which the Muslim families have so far refused to do - neither paying for the cremation nor claiming the ashes after the cremation.
The country is majority Buddhist and Buddhist monks have urged the government to cremate Covid-infected bodies, claiming such bodies will pollute the water supply.
According to the monks, the bodies should be cremated at a high temperature in the nearest crematorium without the participation of relatives and friends.
Meanwhile the ordinary people have no jobs, income or food due to Covid-19 restrictions preventing tourism and trade. This forced cremation policy and other government actions against minorities seems to be an attempt by the current government (Rajapaksa family re-elected in 2020 after losing the 2015 election) to provoke a reaction to try to distract voters from focusing on the government's economic failures. The corruption court case against the Rajapaksas, after their previous stint in power until 2015, has had to be put on hold as they have legal immunity while in office. In 2017 the then Sri Lankan government handed over a port and 15,000 acres of land to China for 99 years after being unable to repay China's loans taken out by the previous Rajapaksa government to build the port, which turned out to be economically unviable and barely used. Under Mr. Rajapaksa, the country’s debt had increased threefold, to $44.8 billion when he left office in 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/30/muslim-council-of-britain-challenges-forced-covid-cremations-in-sri-lanka
The Sri Lankan Courts refused to hear legal petitions from Muslims and Christians, including families of the deceased, against the forced cremation policy and Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is trying to mount an international legal challenge. MCB spokesperson, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, described cremation of Muslims in Sri Lanka as a measure implemented to specifically target the Muslim community, he described it as “a political measure where a collective punishment is given to the Muslim community for political reasons.”
The issue has also been raised in the UK Parliament https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2020-12-07.126126.h
-
There is always difficulty in defining where religious freedoms can be constricted in terms of the law and its implementation of societal mores - see the bakes and BnB cases here. The issue here seems to be more 1 religion imposing its beliefs on another, and the secularisation of laws is meant to reduce such cases. It won't however get rid of them entirely as already indicated.
I can understand the Muslim Councils based on this prima facie presentation of the issue but not sure that I am interested enough in the issue to research more on it, given what the issue is and where.
-
There is always difficulty in defining where religious freedoms can be constricted in terms of the law and its implementation of societal mores - see the bakes and BnB cases here. The issue here seems to be more 1 religion imposing its beliefs on another, and the secularisation of laws is meant to reduce such cases. It won't however get rid of them entirely as already indicated.
I can understand the Muslim Councils based on this prima facie presentation of the issue but not sure that I am interested enough in the issue to research more on it, given what the issue is and where.
NS - like you I'd like to see the full details on this.
But as a point of principle if there are genuine public health concerns then the need to deal with those public health issues must trump religious sensitivities over mode of funeral.
And frankly the mode of funeral seems rather less significant than measures that have been imposed, and abided by, in the UK. Measures that have prevented people from seeing their loved ones as they are dying, measures that have prevented all but a handful of people attending funeral, meaning that close family and dear friends have not been able to attend in person.
These are major impositions on our ability to be with, recognise and grief during the final days of someone's life and after death. But as a general public we've accepted (not liked of course), but accepted these measures as necessary due to the public health crisis. I don't see why a desire for a certain way of marking the death of someone should be more significant if is is a religious view rather than an individual view - and I think most individuals would wish to be present in those last days, to be able to attend a funeral etc - but we can't.
-
The science - the recommendations from local and international health experts and the WHO - is that burial is safe provided the appropriate health precautions are taken.
The government appointed expert committee headed by Senior Professor in Microbiology Prof. Jennifer Perera and comprising virologists, immunologists and microbiologists has recommended that both cremation and burials can be allowed. Following their report the expert committee is being discredited as a sub-committee! The Sri Lanka Medical Association (SLMA) has announced that burials can also be accepted as a mode of disposal of the bodies of Covid-19 victims. The College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka (CCPSL) has also supported burial as an acceptable option for Covid-19 victims.
https://island.lk/if-tourists-can-be-allowed-into-the-country-knowing-risks-why-arent-burials-permitted/
The mode of funeral is usually a means of achieving closure and processing grief for the family of the bereaved. So the impact on the bereaved by not being able to hold a funeral together according to their shared social and cultural beliefs is no less a significant concern than the measures that prevent people from seeing their loved ones as they are dying. From what I have observed, the issue of being deprived of shared social and cultural norms and beliefs seem very important to people's well-being, given humans are social animals.
I personally find the social isolation due to Covid-19 restrictions not particularly problematic. The idea of loved ones dying alone without me being there does not trouble me any more than not being able to hold a funeral or a wedding or any other celebration. I don't have a fear of dying alone. However, I accept that many other people feel and react very differently from me to the idea of dying alone, hence the government's duty is to try to manage the process to take into account the feelings and different beliefs of the people they govern.
-
The science - the recommendations from local and international health experts and the WHO - is that burial is safe provided the appropriate health precautions are taken.
The government appointed expert committee headed by Senior Professor in Microbiology Prof. Jennifer Perera and comprising virologists, immunologists and microbiologists has recommended that both cremation and burials can be allowed. Following their report the expert committee is being discredited as a sub-committee! The Sri Lanka Medical Association (SLMA) has announced that burials can also be accepted as a mode of disposal of the bodies of Covid-19 victims. The College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka (CCPSL) has also supported burial as an acceptable option for Covid-19 victims.
https://island.lk/if-tourists-can-be-allowed-into-the-country-knowing-risks-why-arent-burials-permitted/
I'm not arguing that if there is no scientific evidence that burial is no more risky than cremation that it shouldn't be banned. Hence I started by post with:
'But as a point of principle if there are genuine public health concerns then the need to deal with those public health issues must trump religious sensitivities over mode of funeral.
So I'm not really discussing this individual situation more a point of principle.
-
The mode of funeral is usually a means of achieving closure and processing grief for the family of the bereaved.
Indeed it does and that affects everyone, religious or otherwise.
And if this is so important (and I agree it is) then why aren't you railing against requirements to limit attendance at funerals to very small numbers - which has been the case in the UK since March. That means that many people are unable to participate in the manner they'd wish to help achieve closure and process grief. And similarly others have been unable to be with a loved one in their final days and hours - again heartbreaking for many people and likely to have long lasting impact on the grieving person.
But we accept that (or at least I do) in the interests of public health.
So do you think that religious sensitivities are somehow more important than fundamental human 'non-religious' needs at the time of dying and shortly thereafter.
It seems odd to me that you are raising the issue of curtailing freedom of type of funeral in Sri Lanka, while people in the UK (and throughout the world) are also unable to have the funeral they would desperately want - that is just as much curtailment of type of funeral.
-
I'm not arguing that if there is no scientific evidence that burial is no more risky than cremation that it shouldn't be banned. Hence I started by post with:
'But as a point of principle if there are genuine public health concerns then the need to deal with those public health issues must trump religious sensitivities over mode of funeral.
So I'm not really discussing this individual situation more a point of principle.
I know you are not arguing that if there is no scientific evidence that burial is more risky than cremation that it shouldn't be banned. I was just linking to the scientific evidence as you had mentioned it.
-
I know you are not arguing that if there is no scientific evidence that burial is more risky than cremation that it shouldn't be banned. I was just linking to the scientific evidence as you had mentioned it.
Fair enough.
Interestingly I think that the covid regulations in the UK also allow local authorities to determine the type of funeral (cremation vs burial) in the interests of public health. I don't think there is any suggestion this has been actually applied, but the legislation exists.
-
Indeed it does and that affects everyone, religious or otherwise.
And if this is so important (and I agree it is) then why aren't you railing against requirements to limit attendance at funerals to very small numbers - which has been the case in the UK since March. That means that many people are unable to participate in the manner they'd wish to help achieve closure and process grief. And similarly others have been unable to be with a loved one in their final days and hours - again heartbreaking for many people and likely to have long lasting impact on the grieving person.
But we accept that (or at least I do) in the interests of public health.
So do you think that religious sensitivities are somehow more important than fundamental human 'non-religious' needs at the time of dying and shortly thereafter.
It seems odd to me that you are raising the issue of curtailing freedom of type of funeral in Sri Lanka, while people in the UK (and throughout the world) are also unable to have the funeral they would desperately want - that is just as much curtailment of type of funeral.
Not sure what you mean by asking why I am not "railing against requirements to limit attendance at funerals to very small numbers". I am not railing against the Sri Lankan government's insistence of cremation either.
The issue was of interest to me so I brought it up on here to make the point that beliefs (religious/ cultural / social) are important to people.
Which is why I wrote "So the impact on the bereaved by not being able to hold a funeral together according to their shared social and cultural beliefs is no less a significant concern than the measures that prevent people from seeing their loved ones as they are dying. From what I have observed, the issue of being deprived of shared social and cultural norms and beliefs seem very important to people's well-being, given humans are social animals."
I did not mention religious sensitivities in the above sentence.
Why is it odd that I am talking about Sri Lanka on this forum? The forum talks about international topics.
-
There is always difficulty in defining where religious freedoms can be constricted in terms of the law and its implementation of societal mores - see the bakes and BnB cases here. The issue here seems to be more 1 religion imposing its beliefs on another, and the secularisation of laws is meant to reduce such cases. It won't however get rid of them entirely as already indicated.
I can understand the Muslim Councils based on this prima facie presentation of the issue but not sure that I am interested enough in the issue to research more on it, given what the issue is and where.
Yes I agree. Though I would argue that this is not just conflict caused by religious differences. I think the issue is also conflict caused by cultural and social difference stemming from the artificial construct of race. These elements can all be used to create political conflict. Respecting the dead is a sensitive issue for most people, not just religious people. I thought it was interesting that people assign so much importance to the treatment of dead bodies. Not sure how non-religious people would react here for example to a policy of forced cremations. Forced cremation would not be an issue for me - I think I would be concerned by a dead body not being treated with dignity but am a registered organ donor. The idea of donating your body to science or being an organ donor is not universally embraced. The Alder Hey organ scandal seemed to trigger widespread outrage.
In terms of Sri Lanka specifically, much like Trump's populist support or Brexit and regaining sovereignty and protecting British values brought Johnson and the Tories political power, the Rajapaksa government have swept into power in Sri Lanka using populist slogans of preserving a Buddhist heritage.
Government financial mismanagement and its close ties with China and its brand of repression are overlooked so long as the government can find minorities to target and blame. The government does not have to look far for minority scapegoats.
Elements of the Muslim community in Sri Lanka have become more insular and less integrated due to the large number of Sri Lankan migrant workers from poor families who work in the Middle East, send back remittances to their poor families boost the Sri Lankan economy but also bring back Wahabi practices that have created friction with some of the cultural practices in Sri Lanka. Many local Muslims also run successful businesses, which makes them a target for prejudice.
The minority Tamil community are also a target, after their protracted struggle for autonomy and equal rights. The Tamil Tigers were formed to try to gain rights by force after brutal government repressions and repeated failures to secure equal rights using political means.
I thought the Sri Lankan government policy of forced cremation, which takes away citizens' rights without any rational basis given the scientific consensus is that burial with extra precautions is not going to increase the spread of the virus, raised interesting issues of people beliefs relating to cultural behaviour, governing a population by consent and abuse of government power to curtail freedoms. Especially since similar concerns alleging government abuse of power over citizens' cultural behaviour are being expressed here in Britain about Covid restrictions.
-
The idea of donating your body to science or being an organ donor is not universally embraced. The Alder Hey organ scandal seemed to trigger widespread outrage.
The outrage at Alder Hey (and other places) wasn't because some people don't agree with organ donation on a fundamental level - it was because the organs were removed without the consent, and often without the knowledge, of the parents of the children involved.
-
In ordinary times I regard dead bodies as waste material, which should be disposed of in a useful way like recycling the organs. I have heard it is possible to compost dead bodies.
Until the virus is at an end I think all bodies should be cremated as soon as possible as it appears to be a much safer option.
-
In ordinary times I regard dead bodies as waste material, which should be disposed of in a useful way like recycling the organs. I have heard it is possible to compost dead bodies.
Until the virus is at an end I think all bodies should be cremated as soon as possible as it appears to be a much safer option.
'appears to be' is doing a lot of work there.
-
'appears to be' is doing a lot of work there.
Indeed - from what I have read (and frankly it makes sense if you understand anything about the transmissibility of the virus) there is no meaningfully different risk between burial and cremation. And for that reason alone the Sri Lanka approach seems heavy handed and not based on science.
However under circumstances whether there is a serious transmissible disease that poses a grave threat to public health and the mode of disposal of the body makes a significant difference in terms of safety/public health, then the authorities should be able to impose a particular mode of disposal regardless of religious sensibilities. Public health trumps religious views.
And the government actually has this power for Covid although they haven't invoked it, not least because there is no evidence that cremation vs burial is safer or vice versa. However, hypothetically, were evidence to emerge that one mode is significantly safer and reduces disease transmission then that mode should be required until the pandemic is under control.
-
You keep focusing on public health trumping religious sensitivities or views. There are lots of beliefs and behaviour that are not related to religion. The point I raised in my posts was the interesting issues of people beliefs relating to cultural behaviour, governing a population by consent and abuse of government power to curtail freedoms. Especially since similar concerns alleging government abuse of power over citizens' cultural behaviour are being expressed here in Britain about Covid restrictions.
So my question is does public health trump cultural and social views, in a government by consent?
-
You keep focusing on public health trumping religious sensitivities or views. There are lots of beliefs and behaviour that are not related to religion. The point I raised in my posts was the interesting issues of people beliefs relating to cultural behaviour, governing a population by consent and abuse of government power to curtail freedoms. Especially since similar concerns alleging government abuse of power over citizens' cultural behaviour are being expressed here in Britain about Covid restrictions.
So my question is does public health trump cultural and social views, in a government by consent?
All freedoms have the same value, that some may label a freedom religious or cultural gives it nothing extra. Any restriction of those freedoms is a judgement call. One of the easiest judgement calls is public health versus that freedom in principle.
-
You keep focusing on public health trumping religious sensitivities or views. There are lots of beliefs and behaviour that are not related to religion.
True - but it is rare for more general views to be placed on the pedestal that religious views often are.
So in relation to the current discussion on funerals - we are all (or at least most of us) accepting curtailment of the our cultural and societal beliefs on what kind of funeral and end of life decisions we might otherwise wish for. For example on preventing people being with loved ones near to death, restricting numbers at funerals, preventing singing at funerals etc etc. All these are often non-religious desires that people have for these incredibly important life events.
We might not like it, but we tend to accept it - so in the UK I've seen very little challenge to the actual imposition of highly restricting rules on funerals. However when the government brought forward legislation that included the right (albeit never used) to direct the type of disposal of bodies various religious groups were up in arms - about something that has never been enacted but legally available to local authorities if justified on public health grounds.
-
So my question is does public health trump cultural and social views, in a government by consent?
Yes - as the whole point about public health is that it is about protecting others and therefore sometimes, in extreme circumstances, must over-ride individual freedoms and consent.
Even in the circumstance of government by consent individual freedoms are always limited to some extent - and the most obvious is that we prevent people from engaging in activities that endanger others. So if someone considered that stabbing others was perfectly acceptable according to their cultural and social view (whether religious or otherwise) we would prevent them doing to to protect other. Same with public health - if I feel it acceptable to spit on other people even through I knew I had, or might likely have, a highly infectious and dangerous pathogen then, quite rightly public health restrictions should prevent me from exercising my freedoms in that respect.
-
All freedoms have the same value, that some may label a freedom religious or cultural gives it nothing extra. Any restriction of those freedoms is a judgement call. One of the easiest judgement calls is public health versus that freedom in principle.
True - but I think religious often frame their cultural expectations in a different manner to non religious views, with an implicit or explicit expectation that where there is competing interests religious views and freedoms trump non religious views and freedoms. Hence the language of 'requirement' or 'obligation' to act in a particular manner, often seen in the context of religious cultural norms but rarely in non religious cultural norms where 'desire' or 'wish' tend to be used, for effectively the same thing - a cultural or individual wish that something does or does not happen.
So in the context of funerals and end of life events we are seeing a position where some people consider non-religious cultural norms (e.g. to be able to attend a funeral in person, being able to be with a loved one as they are dying) to be trumped by public health interests while religious cultural norms (e.g. that a person must be buried) trump public health interests.
In saying this I must emphasise that there must be a genuine public health requirement for any such curtailment of freedoms, whether restricting numbers at funerals or dictating the mode of disposal of the body. Of course for covid there is evidence to support the former but not the latter, but this isn't the case for all infectious diseases.
-
Especially since similar concerns alleging government abuse of power over citizens' cultural behaviour are being expressed here in Britain about Covid restrictions.
Can you give some examples please - is this a reference to the anti-lockdown sentiment expressed in certain quarters of society?
-
The country is majority Buddhist and Buddhist monks have urged the government to cremate Covid-infected bodies, claiming such bodies will pollute the water supply.
According to the monks, the bodies should be cremated at a high temperature in the nearest crematorium without the participation of relatives and friends.
Funerals are for the living, not for the dead. As long as it is safe for everybody, the relatives of the deceased can do what they like with the body as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I can't see any reason why burying a person is any less safe than cremating them.
to me it looks like the monks are doing this to spite the Muslims.
-
Funerals are for the living, not for the dead. As long as it is safe for everybody, the relatives of the deceased can do what they like with the body as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I can't see any reason why burying a person is any less safe than cremating them.
Depends on the infectious agent - there are plenty of infectious agents where burying would be significantly less safe than cremation ... coronavirus just isn't one of them!
Just as important in many cases are the rituals around funerals, for example washing and touching of the dead body. For some infectious agents this can result in major transmission of the infectious agent.
to me it looks like the monks are doing this to spite the Muslims.
So it would appear as there doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence to justify cremation over burial on public health grounds.
-
there are plenty of infectious agents where burying would be significantly less safe than cremation ... coronavirus just isn't one of them!
It's something I never thought of before reading this thread, but theoretically, buried dead bodies ought to be a health risk if they can contaminate ground water, but, as a rule, we don't seem to worry about it. That suggests to me the risk is not significant.
Just as important in many cases are the rituals around funerals, for example washing and touching of the dead body. For some infectious agents this can result in major transmission of the infectious agent.
I could imagine that touching the face of a dead body, if the person had COVID19 when they died, might be a risk. If ritual requires it, I'm sure you could mitigate the risk with proper hygiene arrangements.
-
True - but it is rare for more general views to be placed on the pedestal that religious views often are.
So in relation to the current discussion on funerals - we are all (or at least most of us) accepting curtailment of the our cultural and societal beliefs on what kind of funeral and end of life decisions we might otherwise wish for. For example on preventing people being with loved ones near to death, restricting numbers at funerals, preventing singing at funerals etc etc. All these are often non-religious desires that people have for these incredibly important life events.
We might not like it, but we tend to accept it - so in the UK I've seen very little challenge to the actual imposition of highly restricting rules on funerals. However when the government brought forward legislation that included the right (albeit never used) to direct the type of disposal of bodies various religious groups were up in arms - about something that has never been enacted but legally available to local authorities if justified on public health grounds.
I was not aware of any controversy. Which religious groups were up in arms? Can you link to something please?
-
The normal disposal methods can all be used without increased risks of infection, assuming suitable hygiene practices are followed. The numbers attending funerals would pose the most risk, especially considering the personal interactions and conduct normally seen at funerals. But, no doubt, that can also be contained.
IMO, the Rajapaksas are following China, Israel, Myanmar and their own previous actions against the Tamil's, to isolate and keep suppressed an ethnic minority that they find unsettling or can exploit to maintain their power.
-
I was not aware of any controversy. Which religious groups were up in arms? Can you link to something please?
Muslim and Jewish groups:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/coronavirus-powers-to-direct-between-burials-and-cremation/
Note the level of 'exceptionalism' expressed by Lord Shiek and Yasmin Qureshi with regard to religion, specifically the latter who expressed the view that if somebody does not wish to be cremated, they will not be cremated. So in effect if someone doesn't wish to apply by the rules they shouldn't have to - well that could be applied to any other aspect of restrictions on funerals, under the same exceptionalism view. Unless, of course, you hold the view that religious views trumps public health, while public health trumps non-religious views.
Actually I think these powers already existed as I think authorities have the right to dictate the manner of disposal of bodies in all cases where the person has died of a notifiable disease. Now with Covid there doesn't seem to be evidence that burial is significantly less safe than cremation on public health grounds, but the same isn't true for a number of other notifiable diseases, for example ebola where cremation is far safer than burial.
-
Can you give some examples please - is this a reference to the anti-lockdown sentiment expressed in certain quarters of society?
I was referring to the high death rates in the UK, including people dying of cancer and other preventable deaths because they were denied treatment due to government -imposed restrictions on diagnosis and treatment. And businesses going bust and the economic impact due to lockdowns happening later than they should have, which meant they needed to be more restrictive when they did happen.
https://www.ft.com/content/1f52fd2b-7daf-418e-be8b-acc38f819b8d
I was also referring to the closing of schools that impact the educational attainment of children who do not have access to a quiet space to study at home or who need to escape conflict, chaos or abuse at home; the mental health impact of social isolation; the increase in suicide rates; the old people prevented from seeing their loved ones even if they would prefer to risk death rather than be alone;
It seems the anti-lockdown protestors were issued with large fines and the protests policed more harshly than the BLM protests.
These selective restrictions to the cultural norms of a society by the government seems to conflict with the idea of government by consent. The additional powers to curtail freedoms seems to have come about with limited Parliamentary scrutiny and in a climate of fear based on mathematical models. It is especially worrying as the current government are so untrustworthy.
The Sri Lankan government's use of powers to curtail the personal freedom of its citizens is obviously worse than the coercive powers given to the police in the UK. But it does seem that people allow governments to take away their freedom and cultural norms very easily as the price for gaining security (which may or may not be an illusion) when people allow themselves to be afraid.
-
Muslim and Jewish groups:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/coronavirus-powers-to-direct-between-burials-and-cremation/
Note the level of 'exceptionalism' expressed by Lord Shiek and Yasmin Qureshi with regard to religion, specifically the latter who expressed the view that if somebody does not wish to be cremated, they will not be cremated. So in effect if someone doesn't wish to apply by the rules they shouldn't have to - well that could be applied to any other aspect of restrictions on funerals, under the same exceptionalism view. Unless, of course, you hold the view that religious views trumps public health, while public health trumps non-religious views.
Actually I think these powers already existed as I think authorities have the right to dictate the manner of disposal of bodies in all cases where the person has died of a notifiable disease. Now with Covid there doesn't seem to be evidence that burial is significantly less safe than cremation on public health grounds, but the same isn't true for a number of other notifiable diseases, for example ebola where cremation is far safer than burial.
Having read the extracts from Hansard, I think given the emphasis of freedom of thought and speech as a cultural norm in the UK, it seems reasonable for people holding different opinions to want to challenge any part of legislation or hold the government to scrutiny where they think there could be alternative ways to deal with an issue. Especially in Parliament where representing the views of the public and scrutinising legislation is why it's there. So I don't think it is a problem asking the question or seeking assurances.
-
Having read the extracts from Hansard, I think given the emphasis of freedom of thought and speech as a cultural norm in the UK, it seems reasonable for people holding different opinions to want to challenge any part of legislation or hold the government to scrutiny where they think there could be alternative ways to deal with an issue. Especially in Parliament where representing the views of the public and scrutinising legislation is why it's there. So I don't think it is a problem asking the question or seeking assurances.
Of course we have a process whereby legislation can be scrutinised and objections raised - that isn't the point I am making.
My point is about the arguments expressed themselves, which are exceptionalist - effectively 'we are fine with you bringing in restrictions but they must only apply to them and not us' where the distinction between them and us is between religious and non-religious.
So you need to understand a little more about the longer range process, rather than merely look at the limited Hansard records of 23/24 March. The religious groups had already raised their concerns and had secured an amendment - the wording is as follows:
“5A In respect of sub-paragraphs 5 (a), (b) and (c), where a deceased is to be cremated and it goes against their religious belief, the designated authority must consult the next of kin or designated Power of Attorney or the relevant local faith institution in so far as reasonably possible, to find a suitable alternative before proceeding with the cremation.”
Note this is completely exceptional in its drafting - it only applies to a desire to be buried on the basis of religious belief and excludes any desire to be buried on the basis of non-religious belief.
But having obtained an exceptionalist amendment just for religious people this isn't sufficient for some (including those quoted in the article). They wanted to go further than a requirement to consult where there is an objection to cremation on religious grounds, and have a blanket ban on cremation if it is objected to on religious grounds. So their desired outcome is one of extreme exceptionalism on the basis of religion, specifically.
If I object to cremation on religious grounds that objection must be respected and I must not be cremated.
If I object to cremation on non-religious grounds my expressed views can be over-ridden and I may be cremated.
That is my point - the debate is an argument for extreme exceptionalism, even though these faith groups had already secured an exceptionalist amendment that only applies to religious people.
Of course those faith groups and their representatives have the right to express those views in parliament, but I do not think that the UK should place religious views in a category above non-religious views in terms of protections - to do so provides a special privilege for the religious and, if you turn it around, amounts to discrimination against non-religious people.
-
PD - Not sure I understand your point. You seem to be arguing against people making a determined argument in our legislature - or have I misunderstood?
Surely it is up to non-religious people to raise objections to cremation if they have any and lobby their MPs to represent their views, if they have sufficient numbers to be persuasive. If they don't have any objections, then I don't see the problem with those who do making an argument for their case. And in business or political negotiations and lobbying it's common practice to ask for your ideal wish list. That way you exert enough pressure to maybe come away with a decent compromise or settlement. If the majority in society wants to grant privileges to religious beliefs that's up to them. It's not up to religious people who strongly believe in an issue to say no please don't take my strongly held beliefs into consideration when forming policy. It would be no different to Remain or Brexit voters lobbying for their beliefs to be incorporated into policy.
If an issue is not important to me, but it is important to someone else based on their beliefs (religious or otherwise) then I would not deny them their right to try to influence policy simply because I have no interest in the issue or I do not hold the belief that they hold - whether it is a belief about Brexit, gay rights, transgender access to single-sex spaces, animal cruelty, organ donation, or funeral rites.
That's how our democracy works. It doesn't matter whether someone is arguing for an issue because of a religious belief, cultural belief, social belief, political belief etc. It's up to them to make the best argument for their case that they can and lobby their Parliamentary representatives. You can have a problem with people making certain arguments to politicians if you like based on possibly your belief that religious people should be more circumspect about their beliefs?
For example, I do not object to transgender activists making the argument that biological sex is irrelevant or for legal access to single-sex spaces any more than I object to the groups arguing against legalising gay marriage. That is their right. I do object to threats of physical violence against people making opposing arguments or attempts to censor their views. Someone else on the other hand might argue for legal censorship of certain views. Again that is their right in a democracy to argue it - not sure how it would work as in practice they could find themselves censored, and then people end up voting for a Trump thinking they are throwing off censorship and you get fake news instead. That unfortunately seems to be one of the imperfections of democracy.
-
PD - Not sure I understand your point. You seem to be arguing against people making a determined argument in our legislature - or have I misunderstood?
Surely it is up to non-religious people to raise objections to cremation if they have any and lobby their MPs to represent their views, if they have sufficient numbers to be persuasive. If they don't have any objections, then I don't see the problem with those who do making an argument for their case. And in business or political negotiations and lobbying it's common practice to ask for your ideal wish list. That way you exert enough pressure to maybe come away with a decent compromise or settlement. If the majority in society wants to grant privileges to religious beliefs that's up to them. It's not up to religious people who strongly believe in an issue to say no please don't take my strongly held beliefs into consideration when forming policy. It would be no different to Remain or Brexit voters lobbying for their beliefs to be incorporated into policy.
If an issue is not important to me, but it is important to someone else based on their beliefs (religious or otherwise) then I would not deny them their right to try to influence policy simply because I have no interest in the issue or I do not hold the belief that they hold - whether it is a belief about Brexit, gay rights, transgender access to single-sex spaces, animal cruelty, organ donation, or funeral rites.
That's how our democracy works. It doesn't matter whether someone is arguing for an issue because of a religious belief, cultural belief, social belief, political belief etc. It's up to them to make the best argument for their case that they can and lobby their Parliamentary representatives. You can have a problem with people making certain arguments to politicians if you like based on possibly your belief that religious people should be more circumspect about their beliefs?
For example, I do not object to transgender activists making the argument that biological sex is irrelevant or for legal access to single-sex spaces any more than I object to the groups arguing against legalising gay marriage. That is their right. I do object to threats of physical violence against people making opposing arguments or attempts to censor their views. Someone else on the other hand might argue for legal censorship of certain views. Again that is their right in a democracy to argue it - not sure how it would work as in practice they could find themselves censored, and then people end up voting for a Trump thinking they are throwing off censorship and you get fake news instead. That unfortunately seems to be one of the imperfections of democracy.
You are trying to turn my points into an argument about the ability of individuals to raise their views in parliament, which it not my point.
I'm not making an argument about freedom of speech - my argument is about fairness, namely that we should not provide special privilege on the basis of religious belief that is not afforded on the basis of non-religious belief. I therefore will take issue with people who argue for special privilege on the basis of religious belief, as it the case here. I fully accept they have the right to make that argument in parliament, but I do not think that parliament should enact legislation that embeds special privilege on the basis of religion.
So rather than turn this into an argument on freedom of speech (on which we are in agreement) can we focus this on the reasonableness of enacting legislation which embeds special privileges that protect people who hold a view (not wishing to be cremated) on religious grounds, that is not afforded to others who may hold the same view with the same strength of view, but on non-religious grounds.
-
You are trying to turn my points into an argument about the ability of individuals to raise their views in parliament, which it not my point.
I'm not making an argument about freedom of speech - my argument is about fairness, namely that we should not provide special privilege on the basis of religious belief that is not afforded on the basis of non-religious belief. I therefore will take issue with people who argue for special privilege on the basis of religious belief, as it the case here. I fully accept they have the right to make that argument in parliament, but I do not think that parliament should enact legislation that embeds special privilege on the basis of religion.
So rather than turn this into an argument on freedom of speech (on which we are in agreement) can we focus this on the reasonableness of enacting legislation which embeds special privileges that protect people who hold a view (not wishing to be cremated) on religious grounds, that is not afforded to others who may hold the same view with the same strength of view, but on non-religious grounds.
Organised religions have some similarities to a trade union or political group in that they promote certain beliefs held by their members and try to influence policy. Individually people find it difficult to have the same influence that they would collectively. If someone who is not religious has a strongly held objection to cremation they should form a political lobby group to try to argue their case and it may be that Parliament will be persuaded by their arguments.
If it is reasonable to enact legislation which embeds special privileges that protect people who hold a non-religious view eg. a social, cultural or political view or a view based on their view of their identity I don't see that it becomes more problematic if it is a religious view. The views - political, social, religious - are based on beliefs and morals shared by a group of people. Democratic processes allow those groups to influence policy.
As to whether it is fair or reasonable that this happens - there is no objective way of knowing what is fair in competing social views as "fair" seems to change over time depending on the vision and goals of each community or society. I think it is therefore 'fair' or democratic that Parliament reflects the vision and goals of the society it represents at the time that it is passing legislation.
-
Organised religions have some similarities to a trade union or political group in that they promote certain beliefs held by their members and try to influence policy. Individually people find it difficult to have the same influence that they would collectively.]
If someone who is not religious has a strongly held objection to cremation they should form a political lobby group to try to argue their case and it may be that Parliament will be persuaded by their arguments.
Can you explain to me how it is feasibly possible for the millions of people who wish to be buried rather than cremated, whose views aren't based on religion, could form an effective lobby group and access parliament between covid being recognised as a serious threat to the UK in perhaps late Feb and these restrictions being legislated for in late March.
And surely parliament and parliamentarians should pay equal heed to the opinions regardless of whether they are aligned with a 'lobby' group. And in the case of individual freedoms the key word is individual - if it is OK for one person to have the freedom of choice on funeral surely it should also be for the next person, regardless of whether either, both or neither are aligned with a group to lobby.
-
Organised religions have some similarities to a trade union or political group in that they promote certain beliefs held by their members and try to influence policy. Individually people find it difficult to have the same influence that they would collectively. If someone who is not religious has a strongly held objection to cremation they should form a political lobby group to try to argue their case and it may be that Parliament will be persuaded by their arguments.
If it is reasonable to enact legislation which embeds special privileges that protect people who hold a non-religious view eg. a social, cultural or political view or a view based on their view of their identity I don't see that it becomes more problematic if it is a religious view. The views - political, social, religious - are based on beliefs and morals shared by a group of people. Democratic processes allow those groups to influence policy.
As to whether it is fair or reasonable that this happens - there is no objective way of knowing what is fair in competing social views as "fair" seems to change over time depending on the vision and goals of each community or society. I think it is therefore 'fair' or democratic that Parliament reflects the vision and goals of the society it represents at the time that it is passing legislation.
Again - you are skirting around the point - that of fairness and basic equality on the basis of religion and belief, which should mean that individuals are neither privileged nor discriminated against on the basis of whether they hold, or do not hold, a belief (religious or otherwise).
So let's get to the nub of the issue. Do you agree with the following position:
If I object to cremation on religious grounds that objection must be respected and I must not be cremated.
If I object to cremation on non-religious grounds my expressed views can be over-ridden and I may be cremated.
Or do you think that all people should be treated equally on the basis of their objection to cremation regardless of whether that objection is on religious or non-religious grounds.
-
Again - you are skirting around the point - that of fairness and basic equality on the basis of religion and belief, which should mean that individuals are neither privileged nor discriminated against on the basis of whether they hold, or do not hold, a belief (religious or otherwise).
So let's get to the nub of the issue. Do you agree with the following position:
If I object to cremation on religious grounds that objection must be respected and I must not be cremated.
If I object to cremation on non-religious grounds my expressed views can be over-ridden and I may be cremated.
Or do you think that all people should be treated equally on the basis of their objection to cremation regardless of whether that objection is on religious or non-religious grounds.
I already answered the question and am not skirting around anything. I think religious people can argue to not be cremated based on their beliefs. Religious people can't argue on behalf of people who do not share their particular belief. If someone who is not religious has a strongly held objection to cremation for their own reasons or beliefs that are not religious beliefs, they should form a political lobby group to try to argue their case and it may be that Parliament will be persuaded by their arguments.
I don't think religious people should miss out on gaining exemptions or privileges based on their particular beliefs just because other people have failed to get their beliefs privileged.
-
I already answered the question and am not skirting around anything.
I'm sorry, but you haven't answered the question - you keep diverting the question into one on freedom of speech and lobbying rather than on the reasonableness of a government policy.
So I will ask again:
Do you think it is reasonable for a government to bring forward a policy that means:
If an individual objects to cremation on religious grounds that objection must be respected and that person must not be cremated.
But if an individual objects to cremation on non-religious grounds that objection can be over-ridden and and that person may be cremated.
Simple question - please answer this question not a different one that you might prefer to answer.
-
I'm sorry, but you haven't answered the question - you keep diverting the question into one on freedom of speech and lobbying rather than on the reasonableness of a government policy.
So I will ask again:
Do you think it is reasonable for a government to bring forward a policy that means:
If an individual objects to cremation on religious grounds that objection must be respected and that person must not be cremated.
But if an individual objects to cremation on non-religious grounds that objection can be over-ridden and and that person may be cremated.
Simple question - please answer this question not a different one that you might prefer to answer.
I have answered the question. In theory Parliamentary sovereignty must be respected in our current system. There is no requirement that religious grounds or political grounds or any other grounds must be respected.
In practice it obviously depends on the arguments put forward to Parliament by each group. You might not like the way I answer questions but you'll just have to put up with it as my answer makes the most sense to me. If you want the answer to be worded in line with what is acceptable to you, I suggest you answer your question yourself.
-
I have answered the question. In theory Parliamentary sovereignty must be respected in our current system. There is no requirement that religious grounds or political grounds or any other grounds must be respected.
In practice it obviously depends on the arguments put forward to Parliament by each group. You might not like the way I answer questions but you'll just have to put up with it as my answer makes the most sense to me. If you want the answer to be worded in line with what is acceptable to you, I suggest you answer your question yourself.
I'm sorry you aren't addressing the question. This is nothing to do with the arguments put forward but the reasonableness/fairness of a policy:
I reiterate and I'll make the question even 'cleaner' so that you don't misinterpret (unless you are doing so deliberately):
Do you think the following is reasonable:
Legislation that indicates that if an individual objects to cremation on religious grounds then that objection must be respected and that person must not be cremated, but if an individual objects to cremation on non-religious grounds that objection can be over-ridden and and that person may be cremated.
-
I'm sorry you aren't addressing the question. This is nothing to do with the arguments put forward but the reasonableness/fairness of a policy:
I reiterate and I'll make the question even 'cleaner' so that you don't misinterpret (unless you are doing so deliberately):
Do you think the following is reasonable:
Legislation that indicates that if an individual objects to cremation on religious grounds then that objection must be respected and that person must not be cremated, but if an individual objects to cremation on non-religious grounds that objection can be over-ridden and and that person may be cremated.
Ok then I guess I'll just have to not address the question as I need more information. It could be reasonable.
I think the reasonableness/fairness of a policy has everything to do with the arguments put forward for that policy. Reasonableness and fairness are subjective hence I would need a lot more information and even with that information I might come to a different conclusion to you about what is reasonable and fair.
So whether I think it is reasonable or fair for some beliefs to be privileged in legislation over others depends on the arguments put forward for privileging or not privileging that belief and by looking at how that legislation impacts people. I would need to know why people held the belief they did, how strongly they held the belief, what would be the impact on them and on society if they could not act on their belief, what are the values and goals of society at the time of the legislation etc