A British city council ban on atheist websites
31 July 2008 by Stardust
I had to look twice to make sure this was in England! Yep, it is in the city of Birmingham. They list atheism right down there with witchcraft, the paranormal, sexual deviancy and criminal activity. (Though the article points out that witchcraft is a legitimate religion called Wicca.)
LINK: A city council has blocked its staff from looking at websites about atheism.
Lawyers at the National Secular Society said the move by Birmingham City Council was “discriminatory” and they would consider legal action.
The rules also ban sites that promote witchcraft, the paranormal, sexual deviancy and criminal activity.
The city council declined to comment on the possible legal action, but said the new system helped make it easier for managers to monitor staff web access.
*snip*
The authority’s Bluecoat WebFilter computer system allows staff to look at websites relating to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religions but blocks sites to do with “witchcraft or Satanism” and “occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism”.
Under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, it is unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their religion or belief, which includes atheism.
He said the society would initially contact the council and ask for the policy to be changed, and otherwise pursue legal action.
He said he believed he would have a “very strong case”.
Mr Sanderson said: “It is discriminatory not only against atheists but they also are banning access to sites to do with witchcraft.
“Witchcraft these days is called Wicca, which is an actual legitimate and recognised religion.
“We feel very strongly that people who don’t believe should not be denied the access that people who do believe have got.”
He added that some opinion polls said that up to 25% of the UK population now considered themselves atheist.
A city council statement said the authority had a “long-standing internet usage policy for staff”.
It added: “We are currently implementing new internet monitoring software to make the control of internet access easier to manage.
“The aim of this is to provide greater control for individual line managers to monitor internet usage, and for departments, such as trading standards and child protection, to gain access, if needed, to certain sites for business reasons.”
If the reason given for banning the sites listed was to make it easier to monitor internet access, it would be even easier to monitor if everyone was banned from going to religion sites, as well. In fact, just ban all sites that are not related to business like most of the companies I have worked for have done. Banning the traffic of going to Christian, Hindu, Muslim and other religious sites should make their internet monitoring much, much easier to manage (if that is their real reason.)
31 July 2008, on 5:35 pm
When I first read the story, I was SURE it was my college city of Birmingham, AL (the largest city in AL actually), but no, it’s an even bigger city, in a different country.
31 July 2008, on 8:03 pm
Yeah, Jim, this kind of knee-jerk, medieval censorship smacked of the American South to me as well. Odd that it turned out to be old Blighty.
31 July 2008, on 8:20 pm
If the reason given for banning the sites listed was to make it easier to monitor internet access, it would be even easier to monitor if everyone was banned from going to religion sites, as well. In fact, just ban all sites that are not related to business like most of the companies I have worked for have done.
Prezactly, Star! They didn’t think anyone would have the guts to call them on marginalizing atheists/agnostics (who knew our fellows across the pond were as despised as we are?), so the best they could come up with was this piss-poor excuse.
If I were an Asatruvian, I would also be highly incensed; how dare they persecute me for my religion?
31 July 2008, on 8:23 pm
I didn’t know this, but there is another town in England, Aberystwyth, where Monty Python’s Life of Brian has been banned since 1979. When we talk of moving to a more “secular” place like England, maybe we need to do more in-depth research. I am finding they have their own share of religious fanatatic fuddie-duddies.
Vicar supports Life of Brian ban
31 July 2008, on 11:49 pm
More evidence of the extent of serious, demonstrable, long-term brain damage done by fuckhead religions!
Stardust?…That Dawkins Site article link page has some great reader comments.
The catalyitic line by “Mr. Bell” , of course:
“Making fun of Jesus Christ, whom I love more than my wife, in a film is going to offend me.” cries out, perhaps, for an endless number of follow-up lines. In fact, it could even be the basis for a sort of creative writing…
Blasphemy contest?
Hmmm…let’s see…How ’bout:
[Mr. Bell (Shades, perhaps, of SNL's Mr. Bill?..."Oh NOooo!")]:
“In fact; I’m getting, at this very moment, so excitedly offended by just the THOUGHT of all that Jeebus jesting, that…if you’ll excuse me…I’m taking my paperback, illustrated copy of the New Testicle into the nearest public washroom for a bit of intense…
“Wanking for Jeebus”!
OK, all you blasphemous heathens…
NEXT?
1 August 2008, on 8:12 am
Maybe they’re supposed to be, like, you know, WORKING instead of looking at religious websites? Oops…
1 August 2008, on 11:04 am
^^Orzo, That’s what my thought was. Why aren’t they working instead of surfing the internet???
1 August 2008, on 11:13 am
“Making fun of Jesus Christ, whom I love more than my wife, in a film is going to offend me.”
ChuckA, I have heard fundies say this so many times, that they love their imaginary friend more than their wife, kids, family. If someone would say they loved an invisible imaginary friend named Arnold who wore a zoot suit and two-toned shoes more than their wife/husband etc. they would have them committed to a mental institution.
1 August 2008, on 1:02 pm
Stardust,
What about not attending movies that are likely to offend your sensabilities? That way, people would be less likely to be offended in the first place and those who aren’t likely to be offended would have THE RIGHT TO SEE WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANTED TO WITHOUT SOME RELIGIOUS RECTUM DECIDING FOR THEM.
1 August 2008, on 1:24 pm
What about not attending movies that are likely to offend your sensabilities?
BB, most of the time these people who are banning the films have never even seen them and are relying on what their Borgmasters tell them.
There are some films I don’t like to watch, like the shoot-em-up blood and guts films that my husband likes. I simply don’t watch it but he can watch whatever he wants. Same with Meryl Streep movies. How hard is it to just not watch something that offends you or is not your cup of tea? Because the religious want to force people into their “collective”.
1 August 2008, on 1:48 pm
I read the headline and yelled “WHAT!?!?” so loudly I scared the pets. [the chinchilla is giving me that evil stare that says "thanks for waking me up."]
So are they suggesting that discrimination is a valid reason to censor access to atheist sites?
Because the last time I checked it wasn’t.
And I’ve got bad news for the “we only belieb in jebus” morons minding the web filters, witchcraft and satanism are as valid for their followers as your ridiculous magic sky daddy cult is for you.
1 August 2008, on 3:12 pm
England is channeling Alabama. Isn’t that one of the signs of Armageddon?
The crapture is coming! The crapture is coming! Do you suppose any armageddonists drive hybrid cars? Probably not, but i call dibs on one if I find it!!!
2 August 2008, on 10:19 am
“The crapture” Too funny!
5 August 2008, on 5:02 pm
Isn’t that their fault in the first place that we got stuck with all of their religious rejects? Maybe we should give ‘em all back…
26 August 2008, on 5:31 pm
Aberystwyth is in Wales not England…