UK: Defending secular spaces
The challenge succeeded in revealing that the council had deliberately misconstrued and failed to have proper regard to its duties under the Race Relations Act in reaching its decision, and it was forced to concede that it would have to reconsider its position afresh.
Ealing Council's cynical use of the government's confused and contradictory 'cohesion' agenda to cut our funding has profound implications for the human rights of black and minority women in particular.
Specialist services like ours are needed not only for reasons to do with language difficulties and cultural and religious pressures on women.
Women turn to us because of our considerable experience in providing advice and advocacy in complex circumstances: where racism and religious fundamentalism (the political use of religion to seek control over people, territories and resources) is on the rise in the UK and worldwide; where legal aid is no longer easily available; where privatisation of what were once important state welfare functions is accelerating; and where draconian immigration and asylum measures are piling up.
These developments threaten our very right to organise and challenge abuses of power by state and community leaders. Secular spaces are literally being squeezed out of minority communities.
The SBS challenge to Ealing Council represents a key moment for black and minority groups that have organised politically to counter racism and other forms of inequality based on gender, caste and ethnic divisions between and within communities in the UK.
While successful in forcing the council to withdraw its decision and to re-think its policy on domestic violence services in Ealing, our experience has also sounded a warning bell to secular progressive groups in particular.
The current drive towards 'cohesion' represents the softer side of the 'war on terror'. At its heart lies the promotion of a notion of integration based on the assumption that organising around race and ethnicity encourages segregation.
At the same time, in the quest for allies, it seeks to reach out to a male religious (largely Muslim) leadership, and it thereby encourages a 'faith' based approach to social relations and social issues.
This approach rejects the need for grassroots self organisation on the basis of race and gender inequality but institutionalises the undemocratic power of so called 'moderate' (authoritarian if not fundamentalist) religious leaders at all levels of society.
The result is a shift from a 'multicultural' to a 'multi-faith' society: one in which civil society is actively encouraged to organise around exclusive religious identities, and religious bodies are encouraged to take over spaces once occupied by progressive secular groups and, indeed, by a secular welfare state.
In the process, a complex web of social, political and cultural processes are reduced by both state and community leaders into purely religious values, while concepts of human rights, equality and discrimination are turned on their head.
The problem with the state accommodation of religion - even so called moderate religious leaderships - is that they work against and not for equality and justice.
Since 9/11, we have witnessed the rise of religious intolerance in all religions, which has in turn fostered a culture of fear and censorship.
The failure of the British state to de-link the state from the Christian church - coupled with its anti-civil liberties agenda and disastrous foreign policies - has fuelled a faith based politics of resistance amongst Muslims.
In the event, many have become ever more vigilant in the protection of their religious identity, as borne out by increasingly loud demands from religious and even fundamentalist leaders within black and minority communities. Such demands - for blasphemy laws, for state funding for separate religious schools, for female dress codes, and for customary laws for family affairs to name but a few - have nothing to do with challenging racism or poverty, but everything to do with ensuring that all state institutions accommodate 'authentic' religious identity: an identity which depends on the control of female sexuality.
Such demands, by their very nature, deny the numerous progressive religious and even secular or feminist traditions that exist within minority communities.
In this context, the sentiments recently expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chief Justice concerning sharia law are very telling: in the rush to be tolerant or sensitive to religious difference, they create the space for the most reactionary and even fundamentalist religious leaders to take control of minority communities, and they enable a climate which allows religion to define our roles in both private and public spaces.
Their sentiments appear contingent on the false assumption that black and minority cultures are intrinsically opposed to universal human rights principles, and that they do not contribute to the body of law based on such principles that now inform the English legal system. In doing so, they allow religious and cultural contexts to become the overriding framework within which those from ethnic and religious minorities are perceived, inevitably drawing on very narrow assumptions about religion and the role of women.
It is these political developments that have compelled groups like SBS to defend ever more vigorously the secular black anti-racist and feminist spaces that we created in the late 70s and which, until the 90s, we were able to take for granted.
This is now our most important struggle in addressing gender-based violence, in the face of attempts by the state and religious leaders to corral us into specific reactionary religious identities in the name of 'coehsion', on the assumption that we live in a post racist, post feminist and classless society.
This is the significance of our successful challenge to Ealing Council: it highlighted the urgent need to develop a politics of solidarity within and between communities which recognises that what is at stake is no less than the fight for secular, progressive, feminist and anti-racist values - a fight which is embodied in our name.
By: Pragna Patel
4 August 2008
Source: New Statesman