Religious organisations and communities are frequent targets of abusers.
Religious institutions are often well-placed and strongly motivated to cover up incidents of sexual and physical abuse.
We work to hold these organisations to account and get justice for abuse victims and survivors.
Many religious organisations enjoy a close relationship with the establishment and tend to see themselves as above the law. This can increase the risk of abuse, prevent perpetrators from facing justice, and impede efforts to support and compensate victims and survivors of abuse.
Those intent on abuse are often attracted to religious institutions. Such organisations give access to, and sometimes extreme control over, numerous children and vulnerable adults.
When abuse does occur, religious organisations often act to protect the reputation of the institution above the rights of the victim. They may pressure the victim to stay silent and move the perpetrator to somewhere unaware of their reputation.
Many religious institutions also have influence and connections that enable them to evade justice and scrutiny, often for decades.
All forms of abuse, be they sexual, physical or psychological, can cause serious harm. Victims of abuse in religious settings have suffered physical and mental health problems, including addiction, self-harm and suicide.
Abuse can take place in any religious setting. That's why we work at the national and international level to hold religious organisations to account for safeguarding failings, and to ensure victims and survivors can get justice.
Take action!
1. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
2. Write to your MP
Ask your MP to support our work to end abuse in religion settings
3. Join the National Secular Society
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
International controversy rages over German ban on circumcision
Posted: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:18
A court case in Cologne, Germany, has held that circumcision, carried out for religious — as opposed to medical — reasons, is potentially harmful. The decision has, however, been fiercely opposed by religious interests, and this has put pressure on Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The (UK) Secular Medical Forum (SMF), associated with the National Secular Society, has been campaigning against this practice for over two years, raising the matter for example with the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council. Quite separately, the Royal Dutch Medical Association and associated bodies have concluded — like the court — that infant circumcision "can be harmful and that it violates the boy's human rights to autonomy and physical integrity".
The pressure on Mrs Merkel has been led by Jewish campaigners who have gone so far as to suggest that it is the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust, something particularly sensitive in Germany. The popular press has also strongly opposed the court decision, whereas there is wide public support for the ruling.
Mrs Merkel's instinct has been to bow to the pressure, and she has been quoted as suggesting that the decision will lead to Germany being regarded as "a laughing stock". She has vowed to bring forward legislation to protect Jewish and Muslim communities' rights to circumcision.
The SMF's chairman, Dr Antony Lempert, has written to Chancellor Merkel (pdf) to dissuade her from such action: "As the leader of a democracy that supports child welfare, we urge you to resist the strong pressure being brought to bear on you to overturn this laudable decision. The judgment is a common-sense verdict reflecting the expansion of human rights in the 21st century and the necessary restrictions that organised groups must have on their rights to practise their beliefs.
"The lesson from the 20th century is not that groups of stronger people should be able to impose surgically their views on groups of weaker people to satisfy their own ideology or theology, but that all people deserve society's protection from cradle to grave. That the first ruling of this kind in Europe should happen in Germany is something of which you can justly be proud."
The SMF is convinced that the court's decision was in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is a UN Human Rights treaty which Germany, along with another 166 states, has undertaken to uphold.
The NSS's Keith Porteous Wood added: "We hope that the Chancellor has thought through carefully the implications of overriding a court decision, by seemingly reacting to what she regards as populist demands. She may find that in practice this is far more difficult than she imagined. We believe that there are strong human rights arguments to support the court's stance. Human Rights are primarily to protect individuals, and few individuals could be more vulnerable than babies, against the overbearing power of groups. If she seeks to change the law to override the court's decision, she is doing the very opposite: giving groups power over vulnerable individuals. And she is also going to find it very difficult to find wording which permits male genital mutilation, without also permitting female genital mutilation (fgm)."
The SMF's letter to Chancellor Merkel was referred to in a Reuters report.
See also: Top German paediatrician says wait until child can give consent
Supreme Court to rule on Catholic Church’s attempt to escape responsibility for child abuse
Posted: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:25
A landmark hearing at the Supreme Court in London on Monday will consider who is responsible for compensating victims of child abuse by Catholic priests.
The case is being brought by 170 men who allege that they were sexually and physically abused at a Roman Catholic children's home.
The High Court at Leeds and the Court of Appeal have already decided that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Middlesbrough is responsible for compensating victims of child abuse at the St William's children's home, Market Weighton, East Yorkshire, between 1960 and 1992.
In December 2003 James Redmond Carragher, the former Principal of St William's children's home was found guilty of 7 counts of buggery and 14 counts of indecent assault against 22 boys, some as young as 12. He was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. He had earlier served a seven year sentence imposed in 1993 for indecent assaults, taking photographs of young boys and importing videos mainly of children, between 1985 and 1992.
Compensation proceedings on behalf of claimants were started in 2004. Although two Roman Catholic organisations were involved in running the St William's children's home, both organisations have attempted to use legal technicalities to escape responsibility, a tactic mirrored in other Catholic child abuse cases.
Despite a series of shocking examples of Catholic priests being convicted over the past decade, the Catholic Church continues to argue that it is not responsible for abuse committed by its priests and officials. In the most recent example the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth attempted to argue that he was not responsible for compensating a victim of abuse by a priest named Father Baldwin, on the basis that he did not employ him but simply allowed him ministry in his Diocese. Unsurprisingly on 12th July 2012 the Court of Appeal decided that the Bishop was indeed responsible.
David Greenwood, solicitor for the claimants says: "The Supreme Court obviously feels this case is of major importance. The Catholic Church has for years tried to escape liability for its priests and members and I hope this case will decide the issues once and for all.
"I am anxious to achieve justice for the victims of abuse at St William's as quickly as possible. One of the Catholic organisations is trying to escape responsibility. I am certain that either the Roman Catholic Diocese of Middlesbrough or the De La Salle Institute are responsible for compensating victims."
"Churches have had unquestioned access to vulnerable children. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal. The St William's case represents an opportunity to make churches responsible for the past wrongs of abusers within their organisations. I also hope that the court will send a signal to all organisations that care for children that they must rigorously enforce safeguarding responsibilities."
