Existing legislation in the UK requires that all animals must be stunned so that they are insensible to pain, prior to slaughter. This method is considered by most veterinary and animal welfare organisations to be the most humane method of slaughter. There exists, however, and exemption to this law for animals slaughtered under halal or kosher practices, where the animals throat is cut with a sharp blade, and left to die slowly from blood loss. In practice, around 55-80% (depending on which year you take figures for) of halal meat is actually a result of stunned slaughter, as certain stunning practices meet their requirements, while all kosher meat is unstunned.

Conservative Humanists Chairman, James Baird commented “This is a great step forward by the Conservative Party on the important issue of the humane treatment of animals. It is high time that this cruel practice was outlawed in the UK once and for all.”

Conservative Humanists are calling for two measures:

1. A total ban against animals being slaughtered in the UK without having been stunned so that they are insensible to pain. (removing the exemption for religious slaughters)
2. The introduction of appropriate labelling (including where used in cooked meals, as allergens are) for imported meat which has been slaughtered without prior stunning.

This would preserve the rights of the various religious groups who’s teaching calls for certain methods of slaughter, while enabling the majority of UK residents to make an informed choice, and be confident that we are indeed striving to become a true global leader on animal welfare.

The Marriage (Authorised Belief Organisations) Bill, if it becomes law, would extend legal recognition to humanist marriages conducted by Humanists UK celebrants within three months of its passage. The Bill is being sponsored by fellow Conservative MP, and Conservative Humanists patron, Crispin Blunt, as well as Labour MPs Angela Eagle, Steve McCabe, Jeff Smith, and Rachel Hopkins, and Lib Dem MPs Wera Hobhouse and Daisy Cooper.

Conservative Humanists chairman, James Baird commented: “It’s great to see this campaign, which has been in the pipeline for years finally moving towards a resolution. I would very much hope that following the High Court verdict back in July, which found the non-recognition of Humanist marriage ‘discriminatory’, this bill will quickly become law.”

Rehman Chishti, MP for Gillingham and Rainham, commented: ‘The lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages in England and Wales is discrimination, pure and simple. This matter has been under review for some seven years now, and that’s more than long enough. My Bill would bring about legal recognition of humanist marriages within three months of its passage, thus enabling the many who want a legally recognised humanist marriage to be able to have one now. It would not prevent further changes to the law, after the completion of the present Law Commission review, but would remedy the present discrimination.’

Crispin Blunt, Conservative MP for Reigate and Co-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, commented: ‘The fact that the recently departed Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief has chosen to bring this Bill before the Commons should send a very strong message to the Government: the lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages is one of the most serious forms of belief-based discrimination in the UK today. Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland have all long-since extended such recognition. What is stopping the UK Government from doing the same?’

In the recent High Court case on humanist marriage, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Ahmed Shaheed, provided evidence saying that the lack of legal recognition in England and Wales is unlawful. He also commented: ‘It is increasingly unusual internationally for liberal democracies to not give legal recognition to humanist marriages.’ The only general exception is if they follow a French-style system of not allowing religious marriages either.

Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented: ‘We are delighted that Rehman Chishti has chosen to bring forward this Bill. Extending legal recognition to humanist marriages would be fair, it would be popular, it would be good for marriage, and good for the economy. We urge the Government to support it.’

More about humanist weddings

A humanist wedding is a non-religious ceremony conducted by a humanist celebrant who shares the beliefs and values of the couple. It differs from a civil wedding in that it is entirely personalised and reflective of the humanist beliefs and values of the couple. Humanists UK has provided these ceremonies for many decades.

In England and Wales, prior to the pandemic, over 1,000 couples a year were having a humanist wedding without legal recognition. They all must have a separate civil marriage – usually at a registrar’s office – for their marriage to be legally recognised, even though it is not what they want. Couples must go through formalities twice, leading to financial strain, and distress over the state failing to recognise their humanist wedding as their ‘real’ one.

Humanist marriages were legally recognised in Scotland in 2005, the Republic of Ireland in 2012, Northern Ireland in 2018, and Jersey in 2019, and they will gain legal recognition in Guernsey in 2021.

Context of the Bill

The Bill is being introduced following a High Court decision in July that the long-running failure to provide for legally recognised humanist marriages – which have been the subject of three reviews over the last seven years – means that ‘the present law gives rise to… discrimination’. She also ruled that, in light of that, the Secretary of State for Justice ‘cannot… simply sit on his hands’ and do nothing.

That failure also recently caused problems in terms of how humanist weddings are treated under the coronavirus regulations: in September the Government inadvertently limited attendance at humanist weddings in England to six, while legally recognised marriages could have 15. However, in the latest coronavirus regulations last week, the Government made specific provision for 15 people to attend humanist weddings – the first time there have been provisions in English law to provide for humanist weddings.

Humanist marriages are currently being reviewed as part of a wholescale Law Commission review of marriage law. However, it follows on from two previous Government reviews into the matter spanning back to the 2013 Marriage Act. And on its current schedule, if this review is to result in any change in the law at all, it might only be expected to do so by 2023. Given the ongoing discrimination, humanists have been pushing for interim reform, to ensure that the 1,000 couples a year that already have a humanist wedding do not miss out, and to safeguard against a potential failure of the wholescale review to result in legislation. That is what Rehman Chishti hopes his Bill will achieve.

The availability of high-quality pastoral support, tailored to individual religions or beliefs, is an essential support for service people through the challenges of their careers, and to enhance the fighting effectiveness of the armed forces. However, currently, pastoral support is almost exclusively provided by Christian chaplaincy services.

There is no pastoral support for the non-religious. This is despite some 56,000 regular and reserve personnel identifying as non-religious, the second largest belief group after Christians. Furthermore, according to the British Social Attitudes Survey, 52 percent of the UK population identifies as non-religious, with this rising to more than 70 percent of young people (18–24) – the armed forces’ principal recruiting base.

Non-religious pastoral care is well-established in other areas of the public sector, including by the National Health Service and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. And there is substantial precedent in other nations’ armed forces for humanist pastoral care provision. The Netherlands’ armed forces have had humanist pastoral care for 55 years; the Norwegians and Belgians make such provision, and the Australian Navy has recently reformed its chaplaincy to cater to the needs of non-religious personnel by employing non-religious pastoral carers.

Conservative Humanists Chairman, James Baird commented “This step should be a no-brainer, we have non-religious pastoral support in prisons, and hospitals, but our armed forces who can face some of the most challenging circumstances are largely still only able to access Christian chaplaincy services. Please do write to your MP, as I have done, and urge them to do all they can to support inclusive pastoral support for our armed forces.”

High Court judge Mrs Justice Eady DBE ruled that the failure to provide legally recognised humanist marriages means that “the present law gives rise to… discrimination”. She also ruled that, in light of that, the Secretary of State for Justice “cannot… simply sit on his hands” and do nothing. However, she said, given that the Government is currently giving the matter consideration in the form of a review into marriage law by the Law Commission, the Government’s refusal to act immediately can be justified “at this time” and concluded, “Although I may deprecate the delay that has occurred since 2015, I cannot ignore the fact that there is currently an on-going review of the law of marriage in this country.” As a consequence, she declined to make a formal declaration that the Government is acting unlawfully at this time.

In the court hearing, the Government had argued that the couples had no right to humanist marriages, on the spurious basis that humanist marriages are not sufficiently connected to humanism to merit legal protection. At the same time, they also argued that English law already provides for humanist marriages by way of civil marriage. But in her decision the judge rejected these arguments, saying that there is an intimate link between couples’ beliefs and their choice of a humanist ceremony, reasoning, “in particular, in the way in which couples prepare for their wedding with their celebrant, in the statements made during the ceremony and in the emphasis on individual freedom of choice.”

The judge said that attention must now turn to the Government’s promised review of marriage law as the way that this discrimination must be addressed. The Government said in court that a consultation would be published in early September by the Law Commission.

Conservative Humanists Chairman James Baird commented: “While it is disappointing that the judgement raises questions about the best way of legally recognising Humanist marriages, and allows the Government more time to conclude the on-going legal review; the judgement does serve to make clare that it is now a matter of when, not if, Humanist marriages will be legally recognised in England and Wales. We hope the Government will take notice of the ‘discriminatory’ ruling, and act as quickly as is practical to restore equality for the thousands of couples each year who choose a Humanist wedding.”

Humanists UK has welcomed the court making clear that the failure to provide legal recognition of humanist marriages cannot be justified other than by saying that there is a review to redress the issue, but expressed disappointment at the Government being given more time to resolve the issue, particularly given how long humanist couples have already had to wait for legal recognition.

Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson said: “We’ve waited nineteen years for this reform since it was first considered by the Government in an ultimately abandoned review of marriage law, and seven years since Parliament gave the Government the power to bring about legal recognition of humanist marriages without requiring a new Act. Thanks to this judgment, it is at least now not a matter of if humanist marriages will be legally recognised but when, and we await the Government’s response to the judgment and their proposals to remedy the discrimination that has been identified by the court. We hope they will act quickly to give justice to the thousands of couples annually whose weddings are being denied legal recognition.”

Humanists UK had hoped that the judge would have made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of the current state of marriage law, to mark the breach and vindicate the rights of the claimants. Such an outcome would not have interfered with the current law reform process but would have sent a stronger message to the Government about the need for change.

Mr Copson continued: “For the particular couples who brought this case, although it is gratifying that the judge has recognised that failure to change the law is “discrimination”, it will of course be a great disappointment that she has not found a breach and has, instead, said they must wait for the current Law Commission review to conclude to find out how the Government will remedy this. We know that the claimants will now be considering whether to appeal. If they decide to do so, we will support them.”

The claimants are being represented by Ciaran Moynagh of Phoenix Law, Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC of Doughty Street Chambers, and Steve McQuitty BL of the Bar of Northern Ireland. Humanists UK has been supporting them in bringing the claim.

Ciaran Moynagh, solicitor at law firm Phoenix Law, said: “Notwithstanding our disappointment we are greatly encouraged by the contents of the Court ruling as the substantive argument has been won. Focus now shifts back to the Government to urgently provide assurances as to when legally recognised humanist marriage will come about. If these assurances are not forthcoming it is likely this legal journey will continue.”

You can see the full text of the judgement here.

Reserving her judgment, Mrs Justice Eady said that she doesn’t know when she will return a decision, but, recognising the importance of the matter to the claimants, intended to give the matter her priority. It is therefore hoped that the judgment will be returned soon.

At the end of the hearing, Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented: “We are glad these couples have had their day in court, after two years of hard work getting to this point, and on a hugely important issue that has been at the top of our agenda with the Government for a decade now. We very much hope the judge rules in our favour and look forward to receiving her decision in due course.”

Ciaran Moynagh, solicitor at law firm Phoenix Law, said: “The Court hearing is another significant milestone in what has been a protracted journey for legally recognised humanist ceremonies. We are confident that the legal principles and human rights arguments raised hold strong weight and we look forward to receiving a judgment in due course.”

Conservative Humanists Chairman James Baird added: “The six couple have had their day in court, we can only wait for the judge to return her verdict on this hugely important issue and hope that she rules in favour of the clear case for legalisation.”

The humanist couples are taking the case to try to compel the UK Government to change the law to recognise humanist weddings as legally recognised marriages, as is the case for humanist weddings in Scotland and Northern Ireland and for religious weddings across the UK. Their lawyers will argue that the current law discriminates against them because of their humanist beliefs and is therefore incompatible with human rights legislation, which precludes such discrimination.

Parliament gave the Government the power to give legal recognition to humanist marriages in 2013 but no Government has used it. In the time since then, over 6,000 couples have been denied legal recognition for their humanist wedding, either having to go to a state registrar for an unwanted second ceremony in order to gain legal recognition, or not be legally married.

The six couples challenging this discrimination lodged their case at the High Court in November last year. Permission for the case to be heard was granted by the Court on 2 March, with the full hearing due to happen on 7-8 July. After permission was granted, the claimants offered to negotiate with the Government over possibly settling the case, particularly in light of the coronavirus pandemic, but this offer was refused. It is now hoped that the case will lead to a change in the law in time to help deal with the huge backlog of demand for marriage services that is now occurring due to the pandemic.

Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented: “Couples who have humanist weddings see that day as the epitome of their love and commitment to each other, and all they want is the same legal recognition for that as is given to every religious person in our country. We have tried for decades to address this glaring double standard. Government has dragged its heels and that’s why it’s been left to these couples to bring this case. As more and more non-religious couples choose to have humanist weddings, we need a law that works for all people who want to marry and we hope this case will lead to reform.”

The claimants are being represented by Ciaran Moynagh of Phoenix Law, Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC of Doughty Street Chambers, and Steve McQuitty BL of the Bar Library of Northern Ireland.

Ciaran Moynagh, solicitor at law firm Phoenix Law, said: “The time for asking to be accommodated is over. The Courts are now the only appropriate and realistic method of moving this issue on. Following a successful case in Northern Ireland momentum is on our side and I believe couples who look forward to a legally recognised humanist ceremony should take great heart and hope from that.”

Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, and Patron of Conservative Humanists commented: “The Government has been considering bringing about legal recognition of humanist marriages for some seven years now, over three different reviews. In this context it is understandable that these six couples have given up waiting and decided to resort to legal action. Further, it has never been more urgent than it is now to extend recognition, since the coronavirus pandemic means that there is a long backlog of demand for civil marriages. Stopping people from having to have both a humanist wedding and an unwanted civil marriage in order to gain legal recognition is a clear way to unclog that backlog.”

Conservative Humanists chairman James Baird commented: “While it is sad that it has taken a High Court case to bring this issue to the full attention of the Government, that the power to grant this recognition was given some seven years ago, but has not yet been enacted makes this a necessary step to seek positive action on this issue.”

On election night on every channel, everyone was discussing the Conservative polling figures over the campaign and the rise of Labour. Politicos were uninterested in policy, while the focus on whether Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn would be a better leader was ultimately superficial. And when you’re looking for a massive majority, if nobody is discussing your policies, your agenda, or your hopes for the country, then you should begin to be concerned. And the exit poll delivered.

The Conservatives have done very poorly – the expectation two months ago of a landslide victory with a hundred-seats-plus majority is very different to DUP-backed Conservative government we have now. The Labour Party meanwhile is still dozens of seats off of threatening even a coalition government. Nobody is even nearly in a position of claiming to have won the election.

Labour did not win for the obvious reason that the point of an election is to form a government. Corbyn did not and cannot. No talk of ‘cementing the revolution’ or ‘a new kind of politics’ will change the fact that the next government will be Conservative, not socialist.

Theresa May is not the campaigner Jeremy Corbyn is. Unsurprisingly, the woman who became Prime Minister when her opponents conceded before the campaign skirmishes began lost to the battle-hardened veteran campaigner. But the degree of how much worse May’s campaign shocked even the most pessimistic politico.

While Theresa May did occasionally talk about the importance of needing a strong negotiating hand for Brexit, apart from that the campaign was flaccid, unmemorable, and in the early days impeded by a self-destructive manifesto.

The reason why May’s campaign was worse can be summed up in a single word: vision. Corbyn’s vision for Britain (for all its many, many faults) was clear, striking, and at its core visionary. It is easy to rally a campaign around the story he was selling: Theresa May’s hopes of Britain were incomprehensible.

Instead of fighting hard a campaign setting out the Conservative stall on shoring up the economy and protecting the country from terror, we were complacent. Now, all the troubles of the past government will be intensified over the next one. Jeremy Corbyn will not back down between elections and will continually push for another chance to take control of the country – and the SNP or the Lib Dems will support the chance to win more seats in another election.

We live in an age where political polls and predictions are almost asking to be proven wrong. That said, the current Conservative party has lost its reason to be. It was evident in the campaign and the results of this election. The party will need to rediscover what they stand for before the next election to have any chance of winning and avoid a repeat of this disaster.

SaveSave

SaveSave

22nd February 2017
7pm – 9pm

Register for the 2016 conference
Official conference website