Muslim Council of Britain Challenge Forced Cremations in Sri Lanka

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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