Ethetai Record The Proceedings of the South Place Ethical Society

Vol. 113 No. 8 £1.50 September 2008

WHO IS MORE CULPABLE - THE HACKER OR THE PROGRAMMER?

In 2002, young UK hacker Gary McKinnon was "just snooping around" (his own words) in a US NASA and Naval computer network. After trying for six years to extradite him to the USA for trial for allegedly causing damage to the network, a British judge acceded to the USA's request. McKinnon is to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, fearing that he will not get a fair trial in the US. The network's users should be grateful that the vulnerability of their supposedly safe system has been exposed. Instead of putting him on trial, they should now employ McKinnon to verify that they've closed the loophole, which otherwise could have been found and exploited by • America's enemies, causing genuine damage to the west's military defences. The US military should rather direct their anger to the computer firm which deceived them by installing a defective system. Hacking into banks etc to transfer fimds is clearly criminal, but we have a right to demand that any public Carla Revere. fbunder of the institution holds its data with absolute Secular Lanyers Group security and is capable of shielding it See page 3. from any possible hacker.

RELIGIOUS DRESS IN SOCIETY TODAY Carla Revere 3

VIEWPOINTS: Jasper Tomlinson, Mike Honate 11

HIGHER INFINITIES Chris Ormell 13

ETHICAL SOCIETY EVENTS 16

CONWAY HALL SUNDAY CONCERTS organised by the Ethical Society, starting 12 October 2008 Concerts start at 630pm. Tickets £7. [email protected] SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY Conway Hall Humanist Centre • 25 Red Lion Square, London WC IR 4RL. Tel: 020 7242 8034 Fax: 020 7242 8036 Website: www.ethicalsoc.org.uk email: [email protected] Chairman: Giles Enders Hon. Rep.: Don Liversedge Vice-chairman: Terry Mullins Treasurer: John Edwards Registrar: Donald Rooum Editor, Ethical Record: Norman Bacrac SPES Staff Executive Officer: Emma J. Stanford Tel: 020 7242 8034/I Finance Officer: Linda Alia Tel: 020 7242 8034 Lettings Officer: Carina Dvorak Tel: 020 7242 8032 LibrarianIProgramme Coordinator: Jennifer Jeynes M.Sc. Tel:020 7242 8037 Lettings Assistant: Marie Aubrechtova Caretakers: Eva Aubrechtova (i/c): Tel: 020 7242 8033 together with: Shaip Bullaku, Angelo Edrozo, Nikola Ivanovski, Alfredo Olivio, Rogerio Retuema. David.Wright Maintenance Operative: Zia Hameed New Members We welcome to the Society: Robert Ashby of Cheltenham; Gillian Garrart of Amersham; Josh Kutchinsky of London NW6; Livingstone Thomas of London E14; Cynthia Wild of London SW17; Roger Williamson of Chorltonville in Manchester. Obituary We regret to report the death of: Mrs I Meyer of London NW3; Mr PE Perry of Brighton; Mr A Stavri of London NW 10 Donor We are grateful to Mrs RV St John of London SEI3, who generously donated £500. ETHICAL SOCIETY ANNUAL COACH TRIP — 27 JULY 2008 Fine weather accompanied over 30 Ethicals and friends on this year's trip, aimed at the Sussex town of Lewes. Upon arrival we were escorted by a member of the Headstrong Club, to which Tom Paine had belonged over 200 years before, to the first floor room of a local pub. There we were given an account of Thomas Paine's career in Lewes and later in colonial America, where he discussed the terms of the new Declaration of Independence with Thomas Jefferson. Paine's humanist plea that in it slavery be declared unconstitutional and abolished was rejected by the Americans on the ground that otherwise they could not remain united in their fight against British rule. After lunch and a walk round the town, we travelled over the downs to the pleasant seaside town of Rottingdean for afternoon tea and look-around before returning to London. Thanks are due to Jennifer Jeynes and Emma Stanford for the smooth organisation of a successful trip. NB

SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY Reg. Charity No. 251396 Founded in 1793, the Society is a progressive movement whose aims.are: the study and dissemination of ethical principles based on humanism, the cultivation of a rational and humane way of life, and the advancement of research and education in relevant fields. We invite to membership those who reject supernatural creeds and are in sympathy with our aims. At Conway Hall the programme includes Sunday lectures, discussions, evening courses and the renowned South Place Sunday Concerts of chamber music. The Society maintains a Humanist Reference Library. The Society's journal, Ethical Record, is issued monthly. Memorial meetings may be arranged. The annual subscription is £18 (£12 if a full-time student, unwaged or over 65).

2 Ethical Record, September 2008 RELIGIOUS DRESS IN SOCIETY TODAY Carla Revere National Secular Society Council Lecture to the Ethical Society, 13 July 2008

In this country until fairly recently society was more or less homogenous in population as well as religion. Thc village school was nominally C of E. People got married in churches without thinking too much about what they were doing. They said grace before meals without too much thought about God's exact role in getting the food onto their tables. In a multicultural society people have to examine their own faith when confronted with faiths differing in nature and practicc from their own. But to treat faith as the sole issue is to simplify the situation. In the same way that 100 years ago most people would say they were Christian, meaning that they held broadly similar views and morals as those of their fellow countrymen, so other faiths arc a complex mixture of actual faith and culture. Indeed from a sociological point of view, faith makes some sense if you look at it in terms of cultural heritage and practice. A negative by-product of a multicultural society that has so many positives is a retrenchment to more extreme religious views. This has to be understood not necessarily as just an affirmation of faith, but also as a desire to protect cultural heritage. Whether that is in the form of the eight foot high crucifix that is on the wall of the Catholic primary school across the road, or thc wearing of headscarves by young Muslim women, we cannot get away from the fact that faith has become militant in all its forms. The one thing all the faiths have in common is a reactionary desire to maintain and preserve the old rather than to be progressive and move forward. 2003 — The Religion or Belief Regulations Before 2003, there was no law referring to religious discrimination. However Sikhs and Jews were protected by the existing legislation against racial discrimination. These regulations implement the European directive which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in employment. A belief must be a philosophical belief. It is open to question at the moment whether political beliefs will be caught by the legislation. The new equality bill proposes to extend the rights to access to services. Employment law is a progressive area of the law that over the years had led the way in leading social change. It was in the arcna of employment law that we first outlawed sex and race discrimination followed by disability discrimination. I know from talking to businessmen operating in the 70s and 80s that social change would never have occurred, especially in relation to the treatment of women in the workplace, had it not been for the legislation. The religion or belief regs. arc less clear-cut in their advantages. Clearly we want a society where people are not subjected to harassment or not given equal opportunities because of their religion. The situation is complicated when we realise that many religions hold views that are morally repugnant to a liberal freethinking society. The wearing of a cross or a headscarf so becomes not the satisfaCtion or practice of a private belief, but a way of expressing a moral

Ethical Record, September 2008 3 judument on those around them. This is not so in every case, but increasingly dress is being used as a silent weapon of reactionary cultural groups.

Two Forms Of Discrimination

Direct — is where the reason for the treatment is your religion. Ie - "I'm not giving you a job because you are Muslim", or "I'm not going to promote you because you arc a Christian". Any less favourable treatment based directly on religion such as offensive jokes or bullying could be direct discrimination if it could be proved that the person was being subjected to the treatment because thcy were of a particular religion.

indirect — This is where it gets complicated. For the purposes of these Regulations, Person A discriminates against another Person B if

On grounds of religion or belief A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat another person; or: although A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same religion or belief as B, it puts or would put persons of the same religion or belief as B at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons, or puts B at that disadvantage, and which A cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Note: The reference to religion or belief does not include A's religion or belief

So what does this mean for dress? Indirect discrimination is where an employer applies a requirement to staff that is not applied for a discriminatory reason, but that the employee is discriminated against. For example a requirement to work on Sundays would indirectly discriminate against an observant Christian, because observant Christians would be put at a particular disadvantage by the requirement. An employer could justify the requirement if for example they had to make deliveries on a Sunday and there was no other way that they could fulfil that obligation other than making the Christian work on Sunday.

The employer has to be attempting to achieve a legitimate aim. The requirement has to be proportionate to achieving that aim. If it were a main part of the employee's duties to carry out the task, then it would be likely to be proportionate to dismiss them if they would not do it.

The Hairdresser Case There was no direct discrimination in this case by the owner R. Re: indirect discrimination — C, the applicant, would not have got the job any way as it was conditional on filling the chair. It was accepted that C was at a disadvantage due to the requirement of headscarf removal. C has to suffer disadvantage. The requirement of headscarf removal was a valid Provison, Criterion or Practice (PCP) due to the nature of the shop. Due to admission of disadvantage, the burden of proof then shifts to R. R had to prove that the only way she could achieve the promotion of her brand was by refusing to allow the wearing of a headscarf. She had not proved this. What evidence she should have produced was left open to question — maybe letters from clients saying they wouldn't have come.

Social Implications: Backlash Against Muslims In The Press? R was not Toni & Guy. The woman had worked hard to get her own salon and

4 Ethical Record, September 2008 earned £200 per week. False allegations of race discrimination harm genuine cases. We have to question motives — C would not have cut men's hair, she would not have felt comfortable in the social atmosphere of a funky urban edgy salon anymore than I would in a tattoo parlour. It is unlikely she would even have worn funky clothes to compensate for the scarf. From the pictures she was not even vaguely trendy.

The law suit could be seen as an attempt to force one cultural or religious set of morals on another. In the eyes of the law, a religious belief takes precedence over a belief in the brand of funky hairdressing. By insisting on wearing her head scarf she was also sending messages of her moral judgments on what women should wear and how they should behave in public. C had to pay a fine. Another case on dress in employment shows the responsibility on employers to make sure the requirement is reasonable:

Azmi (appellant) v. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council 120071 The facts: Mrs Azmi was employed at a junior school controlled by the respondent local education authority as a bilingual support worker. Her job description required her to work as part of a team to support the learning and welfare of pupils and to assist in the educational activity relating to children from ethnic minority backgrounds. She was a devout Muslim. Since the age of 15 she had worn a long dress and also usually wore a veil which covered all her head and face, save for her eyes, when in the presence of adult males. At interview she had worn a black tunic and headscarf; her face had not been covered. During the first week of term, Mrs Azmi asked whether she could wear the veil when teaching with male teachers, or whether arrangements could be made so that she would not have to work with male teachers at all. The matter was referred to the head teacher. He discussed the issue with a Mrs Maher, and they concluded that it would not be possible to isolate Mrs Azmi from male teachers. Having considered the matter, Mrs Azmi said that she was willing to work with male teachers, but that to accord with her religious beliefs she would have to wear a veil at all times when in the presence of her male colleagues. The head teacher had not encountered that issue before, and sought advice from the authority. The authority prepared advice in relation to the wearing of the veil. That advice stated:

"Obscuring the face and mouth reduces the non-verbal signals required between adult and pupil, both in the classroom and other communal parts of the school. A pupil needs to see the adult's full face in order to receive optimum communication. Schools are professional settings where communication is vital, both between adults and pupils and between adults. It follows that teachers or support workers wearing a veil in the workplace will prevent full and effective communication being maintained. In our view the desire to express religious identity does not overcome the primary requirement for optimal communication between adults and children."

Mrs Azmi was observed by the head teacher working whilst wearing the veil. He concluded that it was readily apparent that the children she was working with were secking visual clues from her which they could not obtain because they

Ethical Record, September 2008 5 could not see her facial expressions. He thought that her diction was not as clear as it would have been if she was not wearing a veil. She was asked not to wear a veil whilst teaching children. It was made clear that she could wear her veil whilst walking around the school. Having considered her position, Mrs Azmi indicated that she could not work in accordance with those instructions. She continued to wear her veil when working with male teachcrs. A further observation of her work took place from which it was concluded, in essence, that she carried out her work more effectively when not wearing a veil. A further meeting took place at which Mrs Azmi was told that she should be "unveiled in school". That instruction was reiterated in a letter from the authority, which also set out the guidance quoted above. Mrs Azmi indicated that she could not obey that instruction. Thereafter, she took sick leave on the basis that she was suffering from stress. When she returned to work, she still refused not to wear her veil in the classroom. She was suspended. Mrs Azmi issued proceedings in the employment tribunal complaining of both direct and indirect religious discrimination, harassment on the grounds of religion or belief, and victimisation. The relevant legislation was the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, which establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. In respect of the direct discrimination claim, a question arose under the Directive whether, by suspending Mrs Azmi, the authority had treated her less favourably than another would be treated in a comparable situation, and whether the less favourable treatment was on the grounds of religion or belief. The tribunal concluded that the appropriate comparator was a person, not of the Muslim religion, who covered her face for whatever reason, and that Mrs Azmi had failed to show that she had been less favourably treated than such a comparator in similar circumstances. The direct discrimination claim was therefore rejected. Was There Indirect Discrimination? In respect of the indirect discrimination issue, the tribunal had to consider whether there was a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) which the authority applied, or would apply, equally to persons not of the same religion or belief or which was apparently neutral. Thc PCP relied upon by the authority was the requirement not to wear clothing which covered, or covered a considerable part of, the face and/or mouth, and/or the requirement not to wear clothing which interfered unduly with the employee's ability to communicate with pupils. The tribunal found that the PCP put persons of Mrs Azmi's belief at a particular disadvantage when compared with others, and that there was a potential case of indirect discrimination. It went on, however, to find that the means chosen were proportionate. Factors to which the tribunal had regard included: (i) that the requirement had not been imposed immediately; (ii) that the instruction to Mrs Azmi to remove her veil had been confined to those occasions when she was teaching children; and (iii) that the instruction had only been given after Mrs Azmi had been observed teaching and assisting the children. The harassment claim was also dismissed. The victimisation claim was allowed. Mrs Azmi appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The authority did not challenge the adverse findings in respect of victimisation.

6 Ethical Record, SeptemberR008 The Employment Appeal Tribunal in a judgment given on 30 March 2007 dismissed Mrs. Azmi's appeal. You will probably remember also the case of the employee who sued British Airways because she was not allowed to wear a cross outside her uniform. In this case BA reviewed their uniform policy which excluded jewelry. They decided to permit the wearing of the cross, but the employee pursued the claim. It was held that BA was justified in its uniform policy because it was a carefully considered applied policy. Religious dress and human rights The other tranch of cases on religious dress have been taken under human rights legislation. This is because there is no current anti-discrimination law for access to services for religious discrimination. In cases against schools, the rights are applicable because schools are an emanation of the state, even if there is a private sector involvement. The case of Begum is the most notable one on religious dress for children. R (on the application of Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School The defendant school was a maintained sccondary school for children of both sexes. The school's uniform requirements for girls included a shalwar kameeze which was seen as satisfying the religious requirements that Muslim girls should wear modest dresS, and girls from other faith groups, such as Hindus and Sikhs, also wore it. The school went to some lengths to explain its dress code to prospective parents and pupils. The claimant, who was a pupil at the school, adhered to the dress code for some two years. She later camc to believe that the shalwar kameeze was not an appropriate form of dress for herself as a Muslim girl who had reached puberty. She, therefore, attended the school dressed in a jilbab, a form of dress which concealed the shape of her arms and legs. She was told to change into proper school uniform. Shc refused to attend school unless she was wearing the jilbab and the school refused to allow her to attend unless she complied with the uniform code. The claimant applied for judicial review of the decision of the head teacher and the governors not to admit her to the school while wearing the jilbab. She argued that she had been unlawfully excluded and unlawfully denied her right, inter alia, to manifest her religion or beliefs guaranteed by art 9(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. The judge dismissed her application, but the Court of Appeal made a declaration that her rights under art 9 had been infringed. The school appealed, which was allowed. (Lord Nicholls and Baroness Hale dissenting) Article 9 of the Convention did not require that one should be allowed to manifest one's religion at any time and place of one's own choosing. It was settled law that what constituted interference would depend on all the circumstances of the case, including the extent to which in the circumstances an individual could reasonably expect to be at liberty to manifest his beliefs in practice. Wearing a jilbab to a mixed school was, for the claimant, a manifestation of her religion. The fact that most other Muslims might not have thought it necessary was irrelevant. Her right, however, was not infringed because there was nothing to stop her from going to school where her religion did not require a jilbab or where

Ethical Record, September 2008 7 she was allowed to wcar one. Common civility also had a place in the religious life. The claimant's discovery that her religion did not allow her to wear the uniform, which she had been wearing for two years, created a problem for her. Her family had chosen that school for her with knowledge of its uniform requirements. She could have sought the help of the school and the local education authority in solving the problem. They would no doubt have advised her that if she was firm in her belief, she should change schools. There was, accordingly, no interference with the claimant's right to manifest her belief in practice or observance. So this case shows that the test under HR legislation is much harder to satisfy. Because she could have gone to another school where her dress would have been allowed, she did not have her rights infringed. Contrast this to the situation where the hairdresser could have got a job in an Islamic salon but chose to apply to a funky salon and succeeded in her claim. Baroness Hale in her dissenting judgment looked in detail at the pressures put on young girls by their communities. She reviewed a number of articles written by groups interested in the rights of Muslim women. Also she listened to the evidence in the case from other girls at the school who liked the kalwar chemise because it meant that they could not be pressurised into wearing the jilbab or burka by their families. Thc literature reviewed showed that many girls welcomed the freedom to wear the less restrictive uniform while at school. This gave them the ability to make up their own minds about the type of dress they wanted rather than be forced into it at the age of 12 or 13. As a general social ideal, allowing young people to make up their own minds about their religion or cultural requirements can be facilitated if schools have a neutral dress code. The Sikh Bangle Case And 'The Silver Ring Thing' Another notable feature of this case was that there was no infringements of her rights because the school's uniform policy was reasonable and carefully thought through to accommodate religious sensibilities. This situation can bc contrasted with the Sikh bangle case where a Welsh school girl is currently claiming that her school has infringed her rights by refusing to let her wcar a bangle that is essential . to her religion — the kara. The difference in that case is that the school had not made any attempt to make its uniform policy sensitive to religious requirements. The girl was the only Sikh in an otherwise all white school.

In the case of Playfoot, concerning the school girl who belonged to a group espousing the 'silver ring thing' vow of chastity before marriage, another aspect of article 9(1) was discussed. This is that the manifestation of the religion has to be behaviour essential to thc requirements of the religion. So wearing the jilbab was essential to Bcgum's belief that she must be modest in public. In this case, it was held that the ring was not essential to her religion but was a symbol of her beliefs. Therefore article 9 was not engaged. R (on the application of Playfoot) v Governing Body of Millais School 12007] EWHC 1698 (Admin) Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) Michael Supperstone QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court 16 July 2007. The school which the claimant attended had a uniform policy which provided that jewellery was not part of school uniform and was not to be worn. The claimant and hcr parents signed the Home-School agreement when she started at the school in which the claimant agreed to adhere to the uniform code, which had been

8 Ethical Record, September 2008 explained to them. Two years after she commenced attending the school, the claimant began to wear a purity ring as a symbol of her commitment to celibacy before marriage. She was told to cease wearing it as it was not in conformity with the uniform code. The claimant's father wrote to the head teacher claiming that the refusal to allow the claimant to wear a ring, showing her commitment to abstinence `as an expression of her personal faith', would be contrary to her right to manifest her religion or beliefs contained in art 9(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights Act 1998. The defendant governors of the school advised that the ring was representative of a moral stance and not a necessary symbol of Christian faith. The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review. It was common ground that the claimant sincerely held the belief `in sexual restraint and that the appropriate framework for sexual relations is within marriage'. A New Issue An issue arose, inter alia, as to whether the wearing of thc ring was a manifestation of the claimant's religious belief. The school's application for permission would be granted and the girl's application would be dismissed. It was settled law that the relevant principles were first, that art 9 did not require that one should be allowed to manifest one's religion at any time and place of one's choosing. Secondly, that art 9 did not protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief. Thirdly, that in deciding whether a person's conduct constituted manifesting a belief and practice for the purposes of art 9 it was necessary first to identify the nature and scope of the belief. Fourthly, that if the belief took the form of a perceived obligation to act in a specific way, then, doing that act pursuant to that belief was itself a manifestation of that belief in practice. Fifthly, that by the time the court reached the stage of considering the manifestation of belief, it had to have regard to the implicit threshold requirements of seriousncss, coherence and consistency. In this case, the wearing of a ring was not intimately linked to the belief in chastity before marriage; she was under no obligation, by rcason of her belief, to wear the ring, nor did she suggest that she was so obliged. Thc ring was not a religious artefact, whatever it was intended to symbolise, it was a piece of jewellery. In those circumstances, art 9 was not engaged. In any event, the claimant's freedom to manifest religion or belief contained in art 9 of the Convention had not been interfered with because she had voluntarily accepted thc uniform policy of the school, which did not accommodate the wearing of the ring, and because there were other means open to her to practice her belief without undue hardship or inconvenience. In the Sikh bangle case, factors of the previous cases have come together. There is an attempt to use race legislation which has a stricter test. This is outdated because it has been overtaken by the Human Rights Act and the right to manifest religion. There is a human rights claim on the basis that the school has failed to take into account hcr religious sensibilities when setting the uniform code. The school says it has a uniform policy and that cannot be varied. There is the fact that it is unclear whethcr the kara is a symbol of the Sikh faith or a requirement of it. It seems that it is only a requirement for baptised Sikhs who are adults who have

Ethical Record, September 2008 9 taken a vow to abide by the laws of the faith and to wear the 5 Ks. The pressures faced by Muslim girls do not apply because thc kara can be worn by both sexes. Would the wearing of a plain steel bangle really be so detrimental to the school's policy, if it were found it was a requirement of the faith? Unfortunately the school did not behave well and subjected the girl to humiliating treatment by isolating her at school to thc extent where she was escorted to the loo by a member of staff and had to eat her lunch outside the staff room and was not allowed to talk to other pupils — all as a punishment for wearing a bangle.

Conclusion Religious dress in society is a complex issue. Personally I find it useful when talking to people I do not know if they manifest their faith — I immediately know what subjects to steer clear of. What I find harder is the moral judgments that I know the person is making about me. Albeit at a subconscious level, the religious person who believes that a particular form of dress is the only modest way for a woman to dress must be judging me in my mini-skirt, and not treating me with equal respect. The law has a long way to go. Human Rights law is clear and consistent. A person will only have thcir rights breached if there is an unreasonable restriction placed on them. Where they can obtain the service or opportunity elsewhere, there will be no restriction. Employment law operates differently. Once detriment is established, which can be as small as not being given a moment's more consideration for a job, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove that it is reasonable and proportionate for them to subject the person to detriment. It must be right in a fair and free society that people arc allowed to wear religious clothing. They should be given equal opportunities in employment and access to services. However the current spate of cases is showing that the people bringing the cases tend to be people who appear to be trying to forcc thc world around them not to accept them, but to change to meet their requirements. The law has provided protection for religious people, but they have to be realistic about the adjustments that employers can make for them. If Sikhs want to take the safety risk of not wearing a helmet, they arc allowed to do that, and the employer will be exempt from liability But why would they want to? This is not just a matter of religious preference, but part of the radicalisation of religion brought about by cultural conflicts and social segregation. The current system of faith schools will go no way to reducing this conflict. Unless wc can remove fear and hostility that is fostered by social segregation, it is likely that this conflict will deepen and worsen. Religious dress is likely to be used as a tool to draw cultural boundaries and increase isolation of communities. Progressive law is needed in order to help to change hearts and minds and to help integration and equal access to opportunities for religious minorities. However the law also needs to ensure protection for the vulnerable and children so that they have the freedom to accept or reject requirements of dress that their culture imposes on them.

10 Ethical Record, September 2008 VIEWPOINTS

The 7 July 2005 Bombings I was paying sympathetic if cautious attention to the case Barbara Smoker (Islam Means Surrender, ER July/August 08) presents... Until I found myself reading "... the July 7 suicide bombers were British-born Muslim youths." Case closed? It is rather easy to establish the official version of the 7 July atrocity as unsatisfactory and flawed — and indeed the same for 9/11. Therefore a presumption of innocence until proved guilty is more than just some namby- pamby bending over backwards to accommodate the troublesome (should the Society perhaps consider holding a mock-trial of these four accused?). After Tony Blair had ruled out an inquiry for the July bombings, Home Secretary Charles Clarke in December 2005 provided a narrative, followed by an Official Report (May 2006), where 4 named Muslims met at Luton on 7th July, caught the 7.40 train to Kings Cross; 3 of them immediately got on to underground trains and simultaneously exploded their knapsack bombs; the 4th wandered about until he got on to a number 30 bus that was [by chancel diverted to Tavistock Square where it halted and, a few moments lato; blew up. Strangely, only a single frame from Luton CCTV imagery — somewhat tampered with, but time-stamped 07.21:54 —was available for the public to help them substantiate this tale. From Sir Ian Blair's 'largest criminal inquiry in English history' , not a single image was released showing all four alleged perpetrators in London together, although the police claimed they had CCTV pictures of them together at King's Cross mainline station at 8.26 am. Later, on II July 2006, Home Secretary Reid admitted the Official Report wrong in giving the train from Luton to London as the 7.40 am. Actually, independent research established that all those Luton trains were running late and the 7.40 had been cancelled. The actual train times, provided by the train operators, indicate that the four Muslims, if they were outside Luton Station at 7.22 am as pictured, could not have been in Kings Cross at 8.26 and (most probably) would not have had time to get on to the underground trains that exploded. A further item, out of many not included in the narrative, may be worth recalling. It relates to the parallel terror rehearsal being run by a security firm that morning. This transcript is one from several interviews given by ex- policeman Peter Power on TV on the evening of 7 July:

POWER: Today we were running an exercise for a company - bearing in mind I'm now in the private sector. And the most peculiar thing was, we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station. So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from fictional' to 'real'. And one of the first things is, get that bureau number, when you have a list of

people missing, tell them. And it took a long time - ITV INTERVIEWER: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?

Ethical Record, September 2008 II POWER: Er, almost precisely. My own company. Visor Consultants specialise in helping people to get their crisis management response. How do you jump from 'slow time' thinking to 'quick time' doing? We chose a scenario — with their assistance — which is based on a terrorist attack because they're in the city, and there are more American banks in the city than there are in the whole of New York — a logical thing to do.

Tony Blair, in excluding a public enquiry, was turning away from a considerable body of accepted procedure. For example, earlier that year, in February 2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) adopted an Updated Set of Principles to combat impunity. The first subset of principles is entitled the Right to Know and includes the following:

Principle 2: The inalienable right to the truth Every people has the inalienable right to know the truth about past events concerning the perpetration of heinous crimes and about the circumstances and reasons that led, through massive or systematic violations, to the perpetration of those crimes. Full and effective exercise of the right to the truth provides a vital safeguard against the recurrence of violations. Jasper Tomlinson, London SE1

The Ethical Record's Geographical Constituency In reply to Giles Enders' criticism of the Ethical Record, I for one find a large part of the charm and interest of the Ethical Record is that it is not a newspaper or journal of comment on current events. The Freethinker fills that role admirably (sometimes) for the secularist/humanist movement. The remit of the Ethical Record is and always has been to record the sometimes arcane and obscure talks given to the Society at Conway Hall for the benefit of those members unable to attend. In this respect the ER does not have a geographical constituency; it serves the members of SPES wherever they live.

As for the 'educational' mission of SPES, sadly, apart from the Sunday lectures, it is almost non-existent despite the several attempts I have made to get things moving. There is the finance there to get several educational and outreach projects underway, but the proposals I have made, and I believe they are the only ones that have been proposed, have fallen on (a majority of) deaf ears. Maybe for the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species we could get something started involving London's huge student population and local schools and science teachers.

Finally I have no problem with reporting the efforts of CR, an organisation which recently put on a series of excellent meetings on the Origins of the Koran at Conway Hall to which SPES members were invited. This is precisely what we should be doing! Mike Howgate, London N21 The views expressed in this Journal are not necessarily those of the Society.

12 Ethical Record, September 2008 HIGHER INFINITIES - A BASIS FOR PLATONISM Chris OrmeII Sec. of the Philosophy for Education Renewal (PER) Group Based on a talk to the PER Group at Conway Hall, 17 July 2008

The Transfmite Pillar Of Modern Mathematics Georg Cantor invented or `discovered' (depending on your point of view) his system of higher infinities beginning in 1874. They were called ,N, . etc. (aleph). Later, in 19W, David Hilbert announced that nothing would induce him to give up the paradise which Cantor has opened to us. David Hilbert was probably the greatest mathematician of the early 20th century, so his words carried weight. Indeed it was largely as a result of his passionate advocacy that the theory of the `transfinite', as it is called, was established as a pillar of modem mathematics. It became much more than that. It became a pivotal theory underlying modernism in general. But now modernism is under a cloud, we are obliged to ask:Was Hilbert's pronouncement on higher infinity justified? Hardly. Since when has the claim that a theory is a 'paradise' been a valid argument in mathematics? It was a brazen appeal to emotion. Its implication was that emotion could trump logical argument in mathematics. There are four main arguments against the validity of the transfinite. First, it is extremely doubtful whether anyone has ever fully realised the absurdity of the inflationary regress' which occurs when one repeatedly asserts that a new mathematical entity (a new aleph) is `unimaginably larger' than anything which has gone before, only to follow this claim with the subsequent claim that it is 'unimaginably smaller' than the next aleph in the hierarchy. Serious belief in the higher infinities means that one must be willing in principle to repeat this sudden shift from `unimaginably large' to `unimaginably small' over and over again... indefinitely. Second, this system of supposed higher infinities has never been grounded. It floats uncomfortably in logical space. No one has ever been able to establish whether the system begins with the infinity of real numbers (the totality of unending decimals) or not. Recently some have even claimed that the question may be undecideable! Third, there is a knock-down argument against the so-called higher infinity of real numbers*. It is that every unending decimal must possess a generating rule, in some form or other, for deciding its nth term. But such a rule will be expressible as a finite string of letters, punctuation marks, numbers and symbols. These written marks, though, can be listed in lexicographic order, so there could not be more than, at most, an ordinary infinity of them. Fourth, Cantor's so-called 'power theorem' tried to establish that the set of all possible subsets of a given set S must always be unimaginably greater than S. But these subsets of S can only be defined by what are called their `membership criteria', in effect questions which must be answered with a `Yes' if an object is to be counted as a member of the subset. Here we have an even more obvious case of strings of marks capable of being put into lexicographic order. There simply cannot be more of them than an ordinary infinity. *Real numbers are all the ordinary numbers (integers 1,2,3 etc., rationals such as 92,3/4 and the irrationals such as square roots of positive numbers, eg 2){Ed})

Ethical Record, September 2008 13 God As A Platonic Archetype All of which prompts the question:Why? Why did the mathematical establishment fall for Hilbert's emotive pronouncement of 1900? The answer seems to be that this alleged 'discovery' of the transfinite provided a copper-bottomed argument against any merely empirical or positivist view of knowledge. If these transfinite numbers were needed as a mathematical necessity, they established at a stroke the principle that unimaginable, unverifiable knowledge was essential. In effect mathematics had embraced metaphysics. But this was not 'just' metaphysics — this was, apparently, valid mathentatks! The transfinite provided an apparently invincible defence for platonism, the theory which underlay the abstract monotheistic religions and which turned mathematics itself into a privileged form of knowledge,

'God' was the supreme platonic archetype. Sir James Jeans said that 'God was a mathematician'. Mathematicians were flattered to learn that mathematics was the form of language used by God to create the universe. Hilbert and most of the mathematical establishment wanted very strongly to believe this, or at least to receive the credit for making it plausible. It.gave their endeavours an additional, almost magic, significance. It gave them, as individuals, an almost mystic importance. They became the high priests of the modem world. Critics of many persuasions were naturally minded to attack this new invincible version of platonism. But their arguments — whether from an empiricist, positivist, falsificationist. operationalist, phenomenologist or linguistic analyst point of view— could not get anywhere near the new platonism's transfinite roots. They were absolutely protected by the 'teflon' of higher mathematical authority.

Maths Declared A UDI From Physics Before 1900, higher mathematics had been widely credited as being a form of conceptual foresight needed by theoretical physics. After 1900, a subtle change occurred. Higher mathematicians became so emboldened by their new invincible platonic rationale that they, in effect, declared a UDI from physics. Henceforth they would develop higher mathematics wherever their subject seemed to beckon. Of course a few higher mathematicians retained a personal interest in theoretical physics, but this was no longer the recognised raison d'etre of the subject. Instead higher mathematics was mainly pursued from about 1900 onwards in the spirit of art for art's sake. I argue in my monograph Evotic Infinity and a long decline of confidence in mathematics (Ingleside-Ashby 2008) that the main consequence of this UDI has been a very slow, gradual, loss of confidence in the subject by the public. There were however some specific moments when the public visibly lost patience with higher mathematics.

First, the mathematics establishment tamely accepted the line put out by the early computer industry that 'computers had nothing to do with mathematics'. (The final result of this flawed point of view was that most of the late 20th century triumphs of applicable mathematics have been credited by the public to computers.) Second, Kuhn's implied claim that science was an irrational activity became plausible, because the wealth of conceptual back-up from higher mathematics was no longer there. Third, the failure of 'New Maths for Schools' in the 1970s led to a widespread feeling among ordinary people that the 'modern mathematics', which had been its motif, was useless. The public image of mathematics has now fallen to a point where it is undermining school mathematics and thereby threatening the technological basis of our society.

Mathematics needs to turn over a new leaf by recognising honestly and explicitly

14 Ethical Record, September 2008 that its flirtations with multiple infinities, platonism and the art for art's sake rationale were .a mistake. You can read more about this issue in The Continuum: RusselLs Moment of Candour' (Philosophy October 2006) and Can we understand uncountability? (Mathematical Gazette July 2008). Cantor was backed by Bertrand Russell, who was incidentally morally naïve, but who was able to give the idea some philosophical credibility. Hilbert and Russell wanted very strongly to believe in exotic infinity. As a result they brushed aside many signs of the invalidity of the concept and set mathematics on a downward spiraJof declining confidence and influence. They laid the earliest cornerstone of the post-modem era. By this move, higher mathematics moved into new territory. It seemed to be saying that there were exotic infinities far beyond anything the human mind could imagine. This was like metaphysics. But there was one big difference: this metaphysics was supposedly valid mathematics! Metaphysicians and platonists everywhere were delighted. Here was a new theory which seemed to overtum at a stroke all the tiresome empiricism of 19th century science. It gave a huge boost to all forms of monotheistic religion based on platonism.

A Bulwark Of The Status Quo Higher mathematics suddenly became the great bulwark of the status quo against the sceptical tendencies which had emerged in the work of thinkers like Darwin. Mill. Nietzsche, Haeckel, Spencer. Higher mathematicians became the darlings of all those who wanted to believe in rigid social hierarchy. Scroll forward a hundred years and it has now become abundantly clear that this theory of exotic infinity was wrong. There can be no exotic infinities of well-defined mathematical objects. because all such objects need to possess definitions formulated by means of words, numbers and symbols. And there is, at most, an ordinary infinity of these. So higher mathematics committed itself in 1900 to an invalid theory, one which just happened to be dynamite in philosophy, politics and religion. The results have been catastrophic for mathematics —which has declined to a poor shadow of its former magnificent self — for philosophy, politics and religion, and, not least, for that crucial area of human activity which rests entirely on philosophy, politics and religion, namely education. It was as if higher mathematics turned away from ordinary food (useful applications in technology and science) for a narcotic which fuelled illusions of grandeur. The higher mathematicians abandoned realistic imagination, and later they spurned computers.

The results of these decisions have slowly dessicated school mathematics. They have also destroyed the subject's image in the eyes of the ordinary person, who now puts down all its recent triumphs in science and technology to computers. Finally around 1972 the higher mathematicians lost their standing with the public. The higher mathematicians had thrown themselves 100% behind a disastrous development in schools ('New Maths') which turned out to be a blind alley, as Rene Thom said in 1972. It tried to get children to run (mathematically) before they could walk (mathematically). This collapse of confidence in the higher intellect was unprecedented: it ushered-in the post-modern age, woozy relativism and the substitution of value-free training for education. The PER Group was founded in 1993 to try to bring back education into schools —by using modem philosophic clarification methods. Now in this quest it must, as its number one priority, expose the bogus mathematics which finally led to so much social, philosophical and educational disarray. Clarifying the mistaken thinking surrounding exotic infinity will not, somehow, revivify education. But this analysis does remove the deepest theoretical obstacle which has been getting in the way.

Ethical Record, September 2008 15 PROGRAMME OF EVENTS AT THE ETHICAL SOCIETY The Library, Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Holborn, WC IR 4RL. Tel: 020 7242 8037/8034 Registered Charity No. 251396 Website: www.ethicalsoc.org.uk email: lihrarygethicalsoc.org.uk No charge unless stated SEPTEMBER 2008 Sunday 21 1430 ANNUAL REUNION OF THE KINDRED HUMANIST SOCIETIES Keynote Speaker: Rob Tielman, Professor of Sociology, Utrecht, Chair of Centre for Enquiry Low Countries on The Future of European Humanism. Greetings from Kindred Groups inc. Maryam Namazie from the Council of Ex-Muslims. Jazz pianist Esther Williams. Refreshments. Sunday 28 1100 RESPONSIBILITY BEYOND LEVINAS. Elle Rasink 1500 ROBERT BLATCHFORD, EARLY SOCIALISM AND RELIGION. Terry Liddle OCTOBER Saturday 4 1400 MEMORIAL MEETING FOR PETER CADOGAN (SPES Gen Sec 1970-81). All welcome. Refreshments. Sunday 5IS THERE AN ETHICAL SOLUTION TO THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ? 1100 Mike Phipps. Editor Iraq Occupation Force fortnightly newsletter 1500 GENIUS OF DARWIN: Richard Dawkins' video (1/3). Discussion Thursday 9 1900 ETHICAL SOCIETY BOOK CLUB: God And The State by Mikhail Bakunin http://www.anarchism.net/godandthestate.htm Facilitated by Volodya Friday 10 10:0-1803 COUNCIL OF EX-MUSLIMS I st International Conference. Entry: £10.Main Hall. POLITICAL ISLAM, SHARIA LAW AND CIVIL SOCIETY. Major Speakers. Entertainments. For details tel: 0771916673 or visit: www.ex-muslirn.org.u1c/indexEvents.html Saturday 11 THE PHILOSOPHY SOCIETY 1430 PIIILOSOPHY -AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY. Martin Cohen, Ed. The Philosopher Sunday 12 1100 ANTONY FLEW's PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHICAL RESEARCH AND ANTI- ATHEISM. Chris Bratcher 1500 GENIUS OF DARWIN . Richard Dawkins' Video (2/3). Discussion. 1830 CONWAY HALL SUNDAY CONCERTS — Box office opens: 17.45. All tickets £7. HARPHAM QUARTET with Simon Callaghanpiano, Peter Buckoke double bass Mozart: Piano Quartet in G minor, K578 Bridge: Fantasy Piano Quartet in F sharp minor Schubert: Piano Quintet in A, D 667, 'Trout' Sponsored by the Ethical Society Wednesday 15 1830 LAUNCH OF THE NEW EDITION (5th) of Barbara Smoker's HUMANISM Refreshments - wine etc.

Published by the South Place Ethical Society, Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, WC I R 4RL Primed by J.G. Bryson (Printer) Ltd. 156-162 High Road, London N2 9AS ISSN 0014 - 1690