Memorandum from The British Humanist Association
(DCH 346)
I have been following the evidence given to
the Joint Committee on the Draft Charities Bill on the Committee
website with considerable interest, and am concerned at what seems
to be a misunderstanding by Alan Milburn of what the British Humanist
Association proposed.
In Q789, for example, Mr Milburn stated that
"on that point, we have had put to us, unsurprisingly, by
the British Humanist Association that the definition as described
here is I think, to use one of your earlier phrases, not terribly
modern and that a better word might be `belief' rather than `religion'".
Then, in Q931, Mr Milburn said that the Humanists "argue
to us that actually there is an argument to suggest that the word
`religion' should disappear and the word `belief' be instated
instead".
We have not proposed that "religion"
be replaced by "belief", and can see valid arguments
against such a suggestion. What we have proposed, on the basis
of the Human Rights Act, is the use of the phrase "religion
or belief" which is used in the European Convention on Human
Rights, and is now also becoming established elsewhere in the
law.
I would be grateful if you could draw this matter
to the attention of Mr Milburn and also to other members of the
Committee who may share the misunderstanding.
We feel this is an important difference, and
would be concerned if decisions about the relevant charitable
head were based on a misunderstanding of this kind. I might add
that the broader definition of religion suggested in the session
on 14 July may meet the concerns of certain religious groups,
but does not address the issue of discrimination against Humanism,
which would be unlawful under the Human Rights Act.
Thank you for bringing this matter to Mr Milburn's
and the Committee's attention.
July 2004
| 
