Sadia: Hello everyone. Thank you for joining us so my name is Sadia Hameed. I'm the spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. And I'm joined today by Megan Manson from the National Secular Society. And she's a campaigns officer of the NSS. So we're going to be talking about secularism today. I kind of wanted to start off straight off Megan and ask you, what is your ideal version of secularism?

There's lots of different kinds of secularism out there and we haven't, I don't think we found one that's absolutely 100%. Perfect. So for you, what is the perfect kind of secularism? 

Megan: Well, first thank you very much for having me on for this interview. A really good opportunity.  That's a really, really good question.

And it's certainly one that all secularists have to consider, as you said, there's many different types of secularism. 

 My ideal version of secularism, and I think the version that NSS promotes is one that basically has equality at its heart. So if I had to describe secularism, as I see it in one sentence, it would be equality for all, regardless of religion or belief. Everything else follows. 

So if you say that everything has to be equal for everyone, then you can't privilege religion in your state. So you can't say, well, you have a state religion, and then you can't have laws which are based on religion because again, you are treating people who are not of that religion unequally or at a disadvantage. 

That's what I think is the ideal secularism. One where that has equality at its heart.  

Sadia: So like that kind of fits into Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain as well, our slogan is Equality for All Priority for None, because when you do start prioritising a single group within society, it generally pisses the rest of society off.

 I guess something that I noticed it a few times with a few secularists and humanist organisations, was this they've started behaving as if atheists, or what a lot of groups have now started calling, new atheists, are a bit of a problem. What are your thoughts on that? 

Megan: Well, when you say they're a problem, what do you mean?

Sadia: That we're aggressive, provocative and that we're a problem. And we were kind of like sometimes damaging the movement. What are your thoughts on that? 

Megan: I think most of those criticisms are levied by people in a very privileged position who for the first time are being challenged.

And they're not used to being challenged and to them that might feel like oppression because they don't acknowledge that they are in a very privileged position. And suddenly when somebody is around saying, well, hang on a second things, aren't quite fair. They interpret that as being well I'm oppressed and that this, we see all the time.

So, so for example, when we challenged the idea of there being parliamentary prayers. So all the parliamentary sessions in the House of Commons begin with a Anglican prayer. We have challenged this, we've worked with MPs and also think that this is unfair that we shouldn't be having Anglican prayers as part of our democracy but there's been many MPs who have sort come back and said no wait, this is all about people who aren’t Anglicans trying to oppress us and trying to oppress our freedoms.

Well, that's not what it is at all, it’s about making Parliament inclusive and accessible for everyone. And the fact is that if you want to reserve a seat in parliament, because it's a bit undersized in the Chamber you can go along it’s a consensus, even if they're not an Anglican. So that's one example where we've seen that sort of an idea that trying to fight for equality is somehow oppressing people. All we’re asking for is equality and fairness.

Sadia: It's interesting because actually I've not seen many, if any, atheists ever call for the death of believers specifically, whereas I've seen lots of believers call for the death of non-believers and on the whole, I've seen more often that the believers are treated like the victim after having called for the death of the non-believers.

What are you, what are your thoughts on that? Does the NSS actually do client work as well? 

Megan: Okay. So for the first question, Yes. I think that it is, it's generally true that, um, you'll find that atheists tend to be at the bottom of the pile when it comes to different sort of hierarchies of privilege around the world.

And if you do tend to see that it's atheist being oppressed by the religious, rather than the other way around, and having said that you do have countries like China. I would definitely not call it secularist because it certainly doesn't treat people of different religions equally. That to me is not secularism if you don't do that. 

And you could certainly say they have replaced religious fervour with veneration of the state. So that communism has become the religion. 

So it's, I don't think it's entirely. You know, it would be unfair to say that it's exclusively about the religious person anomaly it doesn't, but it does historically, that seems to be the direction it's gone.

So for your second question, we do do casework so people come to us with a particular issue related to secularism and we try to help them with that. It tends to be based mainly in the UK. We don't do so much for individuals on an international basis. Occasionally we do, but because we are quite limited in resources, it tends to focus mainly on people in the UK.

Sadia: So how many staff do you have?

Megan:  Five full time. 

Sadia: And do you have some part time as well? 

Megan:  At the moment no. We did for a while, we do sometimes have volunteers that come in and we have a council as well. Obviously the council are important in sort of our decision-making process, are they all set the direction of where we're going to go.

So it's slightly bigger than you can't just say, the NSS is just those five. It's bigger than that. Obviously there's the council and then there's our members. It is bigger than just us five.

Sadia: What do you think of the French secularism? 

Megan:  Well, I suppose one of the attractions it does have is it's quite clear cut.

It does have a very black and white approach to teaching so I can see why people might find that attractive. However, I have found some aspects of it to be less than fair when it comes to religions. And I don't think it's necessarily been used in the most effective way. For me, um, one of the defining points was that I didn't quite agree with that was the bikini ban which I thought, hang on this is really overstepping the mark for me. This is putting restrictions on religious freedom that it doesn't need to be restricting. There's no reason really that I can see that you restrict what a woman wears to the beach and the manner in which it was imposed, I think is pretty authoritarian.

That's where I was saying, hang on a second. No, this is where you're going too far, this is where you're putting religious people at a distinct disadvantage. And the way that you're restricting them, isn't helping to keep them from harm or to keep other people from harm. It's doing it for the sake of trying to keep a sort of religion free space, as opposed to a religious neutral space, which I think the two different things.

So yeah, there are aspects of French secularism that I do not want to see a British model adopt. 

Different countries have got very different ideas on secularism and I think that, you could definitely have a form of secularism that would be ideal for Britain.

Sadia: So, were there any other parts of the French secular that you had issues with?

Megan:  There has been some suggestions that maybe it, it's not quite fair in that it tends to give more liberties to Catholics than it does to people of other religions. Haven't really looked at it in depth to sort of say whether or not that's true. Yeah, I would query as to how fair it is and whether it does put people of all beliefs on an equal footing.

Sadia: Is that a like, so we don't know if that's true or not?

Megan: Well, I would really have to look at it in more depth to be honest, which admittedly I haven't done. So I would have to look in greater depth to see whether there was truth to that.

Sadia:  Okay. So have you ever heard the term secular extremist?

Megan: Yes. We get called that a lot and I'm not entirely sure what that means or what a secularist extremist is. If you are extremely secularist it means you are extremely equal, you're extremely egalitarian because to me, secularism is about equality and fairness, just another term that is opposed to secularism and opposed to the idea of removing religious privilege to try and discredit what you have to say. 

Sadia:  So I've been called a secular extremist, but I've also been called an atheist fundamentalist before, when actually I genuinely couldn't give a shit what people believe provided it’s not rubbed in my face provided they're not proselytising, providing they're not exploiting children and vulnerable people and providing that they're not getting tax breaks or state support that those are major, major issues for me.

 Going back to what we were saying earlier, but if you are quite an outspoken, atheist or secularist, that these kinds of labels can be thrown at you and people will turn around and go, okay. Yes. Yeah. This person is an extremist. My views are still considered extreme in Britain today. Yet those people that are threatening and throwing these labels at me, they are treated like victims. 

I don't kind of understand this infantilizing of quite frightening religious individuals within our communities anymore. I mean, what, what are you thinking around that sort of thing? 

Megan: We see this all the time, one of the main strategies of bullies is to make out they're the ones being bullied. We see this constantly. So anytime we can see there's a clear issue where every religious institution is bullying people, and if you challenge that they will say no, we're being bullied we’re the victims. Others in history have done the same thing.

 Sadia:  Yeah, my feelings are more important than, what you have to say so why don't you just shut up. I guess it's quite pathetic.

 But the thing is I myself deal with between four and 600 clients a month, and we hear this quite often with abusive parents. A lot of our clients will say, well, you know, my parents were abused their whole lives as well, but if you've experienced abuse and then you actively choose to abuse somebody else, because, you've been a victim of some kind of abuse, then you're choosing to abuse somebody else. That's an active choice. 

It's not the case that just because you have been a victim, that you can just be let off the hook for then abusing somebody else. 

We need to start changing the way we interact with some of these abusers within our communities. Because for me personally, on countless occasions, somebody that has threatened me is treated more like a victim than me. I'm not saying I'm a victim, but after having been threatened, I'm still treated like a perpetrator or having hurt someone's feelings. When actually, quite frankly, I couldn't give a fuck about these feelings, you know, grow up, like you're an adult in this big wide world, stop acting like a child. You know, you're not a toddler, I shouldn't have to consider whether you're upset all the time when we're having an adult interaction.

 Megan: Yes. I think that's a good point. When we sort of make allowances for people's feelings, we are infantilising them and we're sort of robbing those people of their dignity in a way, when you're sort of saying. Oh, we have to treat this issue with kid gloves because the people who this may affect may have their feelings hurts. You're not really giving people credit to actually sort of take on board that your views will be challenged in society. That's just what happens. As adults, we challenge each other's views all the time and we should be able to handle that because we’re adults. 

We have freedom of expression at the core of what we think about as secularism we think that it must always include robust defence of freedom of expression. And that's one of the reasons why is because we know as human beings being able to express your views and being able to accept challenges to your views. That's been part and parcel of being a human being. 

Sadia:  And it's important because for young people, they are being looked to, on the one hand we've got things like faith schools, young people are being boxed into a certain way of thinking, but also mainstream schools are being advised how to treat religious children differently, which I find deeply offensive. So the British Muslims for Secular Democracy, they released a paper last year, a briefing paper last year in November and somebody from the NSS was there as well, where they were saying that religious children have specific needs. It was absolutely ridiculous, but they themselves also said that by the age of secondary school, Muslim children lacked the critical capacities that the non-Muslim counterparts have. And that is because you're actively put down when you do ask any questions. You're told that you've got the devil inside you that you're possessed, or there's something very, very wrong with you because you just can't ingest the information that somebody is giving you. So I know you guys are now working with the BHA around the whole issue of faith schools.

Is this something that's going to grow?  Are you guys planning on it, like building this into a bigger and wider coalition? 

Megan: Faith schools are a big part of our campaign area. Last year, we released a new website, and we've done that in response to largely public demand.

An awful lot of people are really unhappy about state funded placements in particular, and that's where we come in. So we don't want to see any state funded schools that are pushing a specific religious ideology. And we want to make sure that independent faith schools are still held to the same high standards that all other schools are. So they should still be giving their children a basic well-rounded education. 

Sadia:  Okay. So you're not for the abolition of faith schools.

Megan: Not independent ones no. if we look at some sort of what secularism is about, it's core part is some separation of religion and state.

Whilst that follows that the state should not fund religious schools. It doesn't necessarily preclude it from saying, well, if the school is outside the state system, then you could in theory have a school that could teach religious various. But what we do say is those schools must still be providing a very high level of welfare and education to the children.

And we do look at independent schools because we know there are some truly atrocious, independent faith schools out there, many of which are illegal.  So they are unregistered schools and we have really, really deep concerns about them because we know that children are languishing in quite large numbers so that we don't know the exact numbers because they are not registered by anyone.

There's no official statistics to say how many children are in these illegal schools, because of course they are unregistered. We know that children are facing physical punishment in these schools sometimes, we know that they very often, they won't get a secular education at all.  Just religious texts and that really, really is a problem that needs to be cracked down on.

I think fortunately there are some positive things coming out, you know, they have been expressing these concerns to the government and are now seriously considering a registration for all public schools, children, which would really, really help because that will mean that you'd be able to monitor their progress and to find out exactly where they get their religious education from. 

So they aren't there now. I think they are going to go into a consultation period of that, but this is something they are seriously considering.

Sadia: I mean, it sounds ridiculous that they even need to sit and consult about it. This sounds like basic common sense that they should know in their country, what education they're receiving, the quality of education and they are given a kind of fair footing, I guess, in, in some ways I probably would be considered an extremist, a secular extremist. I really don't like the idea of any faith schools at all. 

Southall Black Sisters, last year at FiLiA, actually, we're talking about a faith school that they use the Equality Act to take the school to court and they won against the school. So the school is segregating students on the grounds of their sex in the first instance, but worse still, so when a girl is on her period, she's not allowed to touch the ground. Sometimes some extreme families won't even let them sit on the same furniture as them. There's lots of rules and regulations around a menstruating girls. So some faith schools, some Islamic school specifically were getting these girls, students to sit at the back of the class.

Those who were menstruating to come in through the back of the class in sitting at the back in class. They weren't allowed to interact with the rest of the class, which is a disgusting thing to do to a child. But, I mean, like, even in general society, the whole issue with periods, like girls are still made to feel dirty, but it's worse still when there's a religious element on it.

Because what they're saying to a child who largely, when you're religious, you love God, you don't want to anger god. You are desperate to please God, and you're scared if God is upset with you, but you know, you're going to go to hell that you have all of these anxieties as a child to then be told by God that you're dirty, that you shouldn't be interacting with everybody else.

I personally with my clients, see the long-term consequences of that. I see years and years and years after they stopped leaving how they still lack confidence, how they still think that they're not worthy because a large chunk of their life while they were believers, were told that they were dirty, told that they shouldn't be sharing space with anybody who, because even the words that are used, it's pure and impure for a girl that's on her period, but also restricting young girls and young boys is indeed about basic education about their biology, like how their bodies work, healthy relationships, sex, and consent, and all of that kind of stuff. I do see that as abusive and I don't think any religion should be able to prioritise a religious idea over a child's right to the most basic, basic education about the things that they need to know to function as healthy adults in mainstream society.

Megan: Yes. And we would agree that the child's right to have an education about their own bodies and about sex is fundamental and yes, you cannot put religious concerns ahead of that. 

Sadia:  All religious schools are going to prioritise that religion over a child's right. To have that education.

I was teaching at a local university here. There's a local Muslim school for girls in my area. I used to work in the domestic abuse support service locally, and we knew, and we used to specialise in ‘honour’ crimes and forced marriages. So we knew we had to get to that school to speak to those young people about forced marriage and honour based oppression.

So they would just slam the door in our face. There was no obligation on their part because being an independent faith school, they don't face the same restriction. And they're not accountable in the same way as a public school would be. So that's one thing. 

But also whilst I was lecturing at the local university, there was a girl that used to be a student of that local faith school. She was in my class. She'd never spoken before. And she said, we're talking about difference between forced and arranged marriage. And we were talking about how in some religious communities you’re told your husband will beat you, your husband can have sex with you whenever he wants to so essentially rape you. And she put her hand up and she said, I was taught that in school. 

Megan: Yeah. And this is where the state has a very important role to play. So whilst it is true that independent schools do have a little bit more freedom and flexibility over their curriculum. They are not completely unaccountable. That's why for example, why unregistered schools are illegal because you have to have your school registered, so the government can set basic standards and hold you accountable to those standards. 

And this is where we say the government really does need to take this seriously and acknowledge that there are problems with faith schools where they do push a hard line religious ideology that does basically take away the rights of children.

So, and that's where we do once the state take a role of basically being there for children and putting their rights first.

Sadia: Yeah, I see for me personally, I don't see how that could happen in a religious school, because if it is a faith school, no matter what they say, they are in some way, shape or form going to be prioritising their religious views.

So it sounds like you've got a really, really big battle on your hands really, because what they do when Ofsted comes, for a week out of their whole teaching year, even in normal public state, comprehensive schools, I've had friends that were told to stay home for a week because they were the problem students. So schools get around it.

 So with schools where something more concerning might be happening, it'd be really, really easy to hide stuff like that. So that's my concern, I guess, but it's still a noble cause I guess, and good luck to you guys on that. Yeah, it sounds like a really important one to be battling. 

What I did want to ask is what is the political persuasion of the NSS? Do you have like a political position? 

Megan: Well, our only political persuasion is secularism as a political principle, so not to any particular party or any particular position except for secularism. 

Sadia: And do you think any British political party at present champions secularism?

Megan: Not really. No. obviously there are some which are more conducive to some of our arguments than others. But there was none that really is completely on board with everything we are suggesting. 

Sadia: Yeah. I mean, the suffragettes were considered radical once too. And now you just think, well, it's just something that we've always had, but of course there was a lot of pain suffering and it was such a struggle.

Megan: One of the key figures in the early history of NSS, Annie Besant was quite involved in many other causes as well regarding social justice and liberty. 

Sadia: So what do you think about the whole social justice kind of movement today in comparison to what it was, you know, a few decades ago?

Megan: Well, I think that the current trend towards sort of identity politics. I don't think that is very conducive to the idea of equality necessarily. The idea of universal, so the idea of universal rights for everyone, a universal democracy, and the idea that all human beings are equal.

I'm not so sure that some current trends that we're seeing in the more identitarian type of social justice is conducive to that. 

Sadia: Identity politics has come full circle. Historically identity politics made a huge, huge changes, you know, LGBT rights, women's rights. There was some really, really positive stuff done, but identity politics of the past was asking for equality. Not priority. 

Now, identity politics, warriors and social justice warriors are only asking for priority of their little corner and their little group. They don't care about equality for everybody. They are just in it for themselves. 

Megan: The key word there is a group rather than individual. And that's the problem. This form politics treats people as groups, not as individuals. And when we're talking about equality, we should be centring it on the individual, individual rights rather than collective group rights. Groups don’t really have rights only individuals can have rights. 

One problem that we have is that there is a lot of confusion when it comes to talking about, feminism in particular about women's rights when it comes to minority groups, because you're hearing one sort of talk about the hijab.

As an example, you're hearing one set of voices saying that there, the hijab is a symbol of empowerment. It is a symbol of expressing who they are their beliefs, identity and you have another group saying, no, this is an oppressive garment that is entrenching particular standards for women. And those standards are not the same as the standard for men. And it's unfair. 

And I think people are very confused as to which voice they should be listening to. Can they resolve both. What do you think about that? 

Sadia: Uh, again, I'd probably be considered an extremist for this. Like, even though I dislike it, huge, huge amount, if somebody wants to wear it, I really couldn't care less provided that it's not something that they are using to bash others. 

I had this really fantastic moment a few summers ago where it was scorching hot and I walked past a woman who was covered, head to toe, had her face, have a completely veiled and I was wearing a skimpy little dress and it was see-though. You could see my bra and my pants but we both did the same thing as we walked past each other. And it's natural. It's a natural human thing to do. You know, we both kind of looked at each other, both judged each other a little, and I'm not going to claim that I don't judge people because I think it’s a completely natural human thing to do.

You're drawn to some people. You're not drawn to others. So I think when people start sitting there and saying that they are non-judgmental and they treat everybody exactly the same. It's not humanly possible. Some people you're naturally drawn to and that's it. So we, we judged each other a little.

 But I genuinely couldn't care less that she was wearing it. I dislike the face though. I absolutely disagree with the face veil and I wouldn't stand in anybody's right to wear it. I have worn it by the way. I've worn the niqab myself in this country and the hijab. I’ve worn everything.

There was no need for it because then the niqab in some countries is required because without it, you will attract too much attention and it is actually dangerous. I've worn it in Pakistan and Saudi, and I've worn in this country in Pakistan and Saudi without here, I attracted too much attention.

When in Saudi I went out without my eyes covered. Everything else covered my fingers, my feet, everything. I got shouted down. So it was desperately needed. Whereas in the UK, particularly when I wore it, and it's still not really common, 

You just attract more attention. So it doesn't serve its purpose. The whole purpose of it is to detract attention, but I actually find it quite offensive on multiple levels. 

So I worked in the women's sector, like I said, for many years, I worked in sexual violence sector to me, the hijab and this modesty culture exists is the ultimate form of victim blaming. I’ve seen it countless times play out where, a young girl of 12, 13, 14, when she is raped, the question is asked.

Was she fully veiled? Was a hair out? Was she asking for it in any way?

In mainstream society, those questions are considered absolutely monstrous wouldn't happen anymore. Of course, some people dare to do it, but they're shouted down like the dick heads that they are, but in our community, in the community that I've grown up in, they are still considered legitimate questions and that's deeply, deeply offensive because it sends a clear message.

That what they've essentially put out is that girls that don't veil are free game. And I've heard like a friends say to me, because I have got hijab friends, that was said to me that they were in London, you're walking down the road and they, they were talking amongst themselves and some guys said - not her she's, she's not with us. She's not free game -

So those ideas very much exist. But I also find it offensive for men in my life. I've got some wonderful, wonderful friends, a wonderful partner. He's not a rapist. The idea that if a woman isn't covered that he's not going to be able to control him himself and is going to jump on her and rape her. I think that's deeply offensive. 

So on lots of levels. And also the fact that a woman is constantly being pressured to take care of herself and cover herself and, you know, think about all the preventative measures to prevent sexual violence. And the men are not given any accountability. If you've got a problem, paedophilia or sexual violence in your community, that's something that you need to deal with the men about not the women.

You don't put more pressure on women. You don't imprison women in their houses or like in fabric cages. It's incredibly regressive. And it's ultimately about the women that are more sellable. A woman that's covering that's pious that isn't goby, she's easier to marry off than a woman who speaks out for herself, who doesn't cover her hair, who is showing everything to everybody, then she's free game.

So there's some deeply offensive ideas behind it. And of course, some women are going to champion it as well. But that doesn't mean that it's any less of an offensive idea. 

Megan: Well, I don't think you're an extremist at all I think I would agree with everything you said there.

I agree that women should have the right to wear pretty much whatever they want and on a personal level, I find this form of fashion quite offensive as well. Just the idea of women having to cover themselves in such an extreme manner and to be held to a different standard of so called modesty, but men don't have to. I find that quite an offensive idea. 

But I acknowledge that women have a right to wear that and that my feelings and offense shouldn’t be taken into account, and it shouldn't preclude their rights to wear it. I would say you shouldn't have absolute rights to wear a niqab in any circumstance.

Like anytime where we would expect people to show their face, then yes, I think that the same rules should apply to people in a niqab. 

Sadia: I don't think the niqab has any place in our society here. I think in some countries until they've dealt with some of their social problems or all of the women remove it at the same time until then it's different.

But for women here, there is actually no need it doesn't do anything. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. It makes them stand out. So it doesn't serve its purpose. But certainly, I do still personally have quite a problem with the hijab as well.

You just said something really interesting – that ‘my feelings don't matter’. That's really, really key, right. Our feelings, a lot of the time don't matter. And we feel like that as well. Something might piss us off something might offender. Something might make us feel really grossed out, but we just go. ‘Oh, well, so what,’ but it's the opposite with some individuals within religious communities that because their feelings are hurt, we should all change our way of living our thoughts, our, our way of speaking. 

That is the definition of intolerance, essentially. Just cause my feelings are being hurt. I expect everybody to change how they go about their lives. Like I said, the hijab to me is deeply, deeply offensive, but if somebody wants to wear it, fair enough go ahead and do it. You can't force others to wear it. If they then expected me to wear it, then that would be a major, major problem. But if they, if they want to wear it, a genuinely don't care provided they're not thrusting on other members of society. And this conversation is constantly getting bigger.

Last year, something made my blood curdle. We had one of the hottest summers last year, and I remember a woman goes past me. I was in my car, a woman ran past me and she, she had her little toddler and the push chair and the toddler was wearing a hijab. And when you put a child in a push chair or a pram, I could see under her robe that she had another layer on under her robe. And I wasn't wearing very much that summer because it's so hot. And even with like the thinnest of layers I was absolutely cooking. To me that's nothing other than abuse, you know of. Why are you having to cover your girls to that extent, is it because you fear that you've got predators in your household because if you have then that's the wrong way of dealing with it. 

I found an injured cat in my street once and I thought it was injured so I brought it into the house. It wasn't so good, then I knocked on the doors in my street, and there's a Muslim family on my street, she was wearing a niqab inside a house. She didn't even take the chain off.  Like she opened the door a tiny bit, stood behind the door. It was like glass and we could see. She refused to open the door enough to even interact with us.

So for me, that woman is in a prison cell, in multiple prisons, you know, she's in a prison in her house, but then her house has become a prison as well. Her clothes have become to prison. I do have serious issues with women being treated like that.

 Megan: Absolutely. I mean, it is frightening and it's frightening because so many people don't realise that this goes on and it's very easy if you live in a fairly liberal environment as I have done pretty much all my life, you don't necessarily know what goes on. It’s very, very hard to think this goes on in your own country it does happen.

Sadia: The thing is when I'm telling people that it is happening, they then act as if I am being a intolerant or bigoted, when actually I'm quite concerned for these women, particularly because these are women I would have grown up with the kinds of women I would like to interact with. You know, I'd like to be able to say to them, right, how you doing and have that simple conversation, but there's this huge barrier between us.

We know like, it's not rocket science now. Like a lot of what we're saying, isn't coming out of nowhere. You know, we rely a lot on body language on facial expressions, things like that. They've put this huge barrier between women and the rest of society because men don't face that barrier.

A man's hijab is to cover from between his knees to his belly burn. That's it. He can walk around topless with the majority of his body showing, and nobody has a problem with that. And a man is required to lower his gaze, but we know that doesn't happen. And if that was the case, if a man’s hijab was effective, women wouldn't have to wear these mobile prisons.

I don't even like calling them what they are because to me, they just look like prisons or torture devices. When I've worn these garments, you’re breathing hot air into your face the whole time. It's really, really uncomfortable that you're cooking inside of the inside that fabric because it's usually always black. It's not pleasant. 

And also there was a GP on the radio the other day, talking about how vitamin D deficiency is really, really high amongst hijabi women because. They're usually expose far less flesh, so there's health issues related to it, as well.  I guess we've just got to wait out for it because in a few days we probably will be accused of some kind of xenophobia just saying mere facts.

Megan: Again, part of free society is being able to criticise, even if you don't want to necessarily see a complete ban on something. You just robustly criticise someone and not normalise it. I do worry that some of these extreme forms of covering are being steadily normalised. So people are thinking well, that's, that's just what Muslims do when this is a very unusual and very extreme thing to do.

Sadia: Absolutely. And there's thing that's pissing me off at the moment. And it was when I was a kid, the hijab not the niqab. The niqab I saw that in my adult life, in my younger years, didn't see it at all including Pakistan, in fact, in Pakistan, women might cover their face slightly, but not to the degree they do now. I didn't see the hijab that often. And actually when I was younger, there were women fighting multiple issues. Muslim women fighting multiple issues without the hijab, they were fighting racism, sexism, fighting oppression within their own communities, fighting pressures from the wider community.

They had a serious, serious, serious battle on their hands.

Now they have slowly been erased because what the press nowadays is doing the mainstream media is nowadays doing. And I don't mean all media outlets because I don't like to blanket blame everybody because there's some fantastic journalists and fantastic media folks they're doing really, really good work, but there's some really lazy journalism happening at the moment when, you know, a hijabi woman does something. They celebrate it with such excitement. This is the first hijabi woman to do something of this sort. And I think, well, actually Muslim women made huge achievements for years before this. And you're slowly erasing them and replacing them with just hijabi women. Never mind the Muslim women's achievements years before this.

Megan: Exactly. It's like the hijab has become synonymous with Muslim now. The only Muslims that people will accept that are Muslims are hijabis and that's not true, there is a huge spectrum of Muslims out there and hijabis is just one of them.

 Sadia: Yeah. And there's, there's a problem going on at moment as well, because like our organisations, both of our organisations is still considered controversial in some ways, perhaps NSS a little bit more because we call ourselves ex Muslims because, because of the stigma faced by ex-Muslims internationally in the death penalties and the actual executions of ex-Muslims internationally with the problem I have is when we do something,  where we challenging some of the norms within the communities that we came from, we're no longer a part of. Then we’re considered provocateurs. We’re considered troublemakers we’re considered to be asking for or intentionally be provoking. But when the members of the community that we historically came from. When the Muslim community do exactly the same thing. It's not considered provocative. 

So I'll give you an example, couple of months ago now I took part in a documentary, 30 years on from the Rushdie affair, in that film, we were showing them some of the banners that we used at the pride parade a couple of years ago, and there was a Muslim journalist interviewing me.

He found it controversial. He found it quite extreme some of the things that we were doing, but he didn't find it controversial that he then took the Satanic Verses back to Bradford and went and asked Muslim people, 30 years on, what did they think about 30 years on after Satanic Verses. Those feelings are still very much there in Bradford, which was proved at the end of the documentary, by somebody who had been involved with the book burning 30 years ago.

So it wasn't controversial when he did it as a believer, but now it was a non-believer. If I did exactly the same thing, it would be controversial. He is deserving of protection. I'm not. This double standard pissed me off now.

Megan: Yes, I remember that documentary, and I completely agree the points you made regarding freedom of speech, and yes, there does seem to be a bit of a double standard where Muslims can say one thing and ex-Muslims cannot. It's almost like if you're inside the group, you're allowed to criticise anything outside you’re not allowed to criticise it. You know, it's not helpful at all. 

Sadia: No, but we don't do that with Christians. An ex Christian, I should say nobody accuses them of intentionally provoking, when they do exactly the same things, as we do at the same Pride parade, we had Allah is gay banners and behind us they had ‘God is gay’ banners, or Jesus has two dads, which essentially is exactly the same that God is gay. 

No problem, not one complaint about that. So this double standard is running across several, in several places for us. I started to get a bit exhausting and it's lazy.

On the one hand they can think about it. It’s fine with one group. Muslims are kind of off limits. And for me, all it kind of stinks of the modern version of the white man’s burden. These savages can’t take care of themselves they need protecting by us the white saviour. It's pathetic.

Megan: And I'd say that it's, again it's holding people to different standards and different rules, it has going back to that bigotry of low expectations. Yeah. it's almost othering. It's not seeing those people as being equally British. That's what it is. It's seeing them as exotic and other and therefore that different rules apply.

Sadia:  I mean members of my community, which I guess I'm not part of that community anymore. They've completely removed me in some ways. I kind of expect a backlash from them, people that have this vested interest in safeguarding some of their religious ideals, they are going to kick back.

But when it's people that don't understand that I have been a Muslim and I hate having to do this because no Christian ever has to do this by the way. So this is me even having to give this explanation. It bores me to death now, but the fact that I have been a member of that community, and I've read all the texts, I've read books about those texts. I was a believer at one point is the fact that I have people that have never been part of that community, then attacking me for challenging members of that community now, I find that deeply offensive.

 I find that more offensive than when I'm attacked by members of my community. 

Megan: That's a slap in the face isn't it.

Sadia: Massively so, plain and simple I just see it as racism because you know, they've got their friend Mohammed, who's a stand-up guy and they're basing it all on that. And they need to protect all Muslims because they consider every single Muslim to be like their friend Mohammed and that’s it.

It's a very simplistic view, but also a lot of the time, I think they think they're well-meaning. I think that I personally think they're quite toxic, liberals or lefties, they've not really interacted face-to-face with any ex-Muslims they've not dared have a conversation with us, but they've made up their mind about us before they've had a proper interaction with us, because online interactions to me don’t count.

Because you behave differently when somebody sat face- to-face with you, you're forced to be respectful. You're forced to not be as extreme as you would on line. So we do try and invite them to come and have a discussion with us. It’s very rarely taken up. 

Megan: That is such a shame. 

I imagine part of it is down to numbers as well. It seems to be. Ex-Muslims sort of rally around into particular group in the minority. And you have this enormous, highly privileged majority who were controlling the conversation. People assume that, because they say we represent Muslims, that they do.

Sadia:  There's councillors, MPs, police and crime commissioners, absolutely. to blame for that. Largely the powers that be, tend to be from a specific racial and economic background to be fair. And they don't want to be engaging with, you know, hundreds and hundreds of people of colour or Muslims

They just want one person that is the spokesperson or the kind of that they only want to interact with one person from that community. They don't want to be interacting with lots of people from that community. That is genuinely what I feel, what I think is happening with the powers that be.

It’s never going to change unless they are willing to interact with a range of people from our backgrounds.

Megan: And that’s where hopeful secularism comes in because it says everyone regardless of how big your group is or how much privilege you already have, it’s about treating everyone equally and making sure that everyone has got an equal say everyone's on a level playing field. 

With secularism we try to create that space where everyone can have this equal say. 

Sadia: That's exactly what we want too, but we're still considered to have sold ourselves down river to people like you. It's quite offensive really.

What do you think needs to happen for secularism to become a part of our society, our politics, and for that to actually be like a core part of our society now?

Megan: The number one thing is education. We just need more people to understand what secularism is. It is a very, very poorly understood concept in the UK.

Americans understand it because they have a secular constitution. British people don't understand it at all, it's a very unfamiliar term. It's often conflated with atheism. It's a lot of people think that's just another word for atheism when in fact it's very different, it's a political term, It’s about how you think society and democracy should be placed to be formed and structured. 

So that's the number one thing is basically to raise awareness of what secularism is, why it is so important to have equality and democracy. And that then from that, if more and more people can really find out about what it is and why it's good for everyone.

Then that really would help in it really would make a big difference. So that's my, uh, my main message. And of course, if people do want to find out more about secularism, um, I would encourage them to look at our website, which is www.secularism.org.uk. 

We have just released a Exploring Secularism resource which you can find on our website. 

Exploringsecularism.org   

It is aimed at school teachers. However, I think it's a really good guide just in general about secularism and what it is, how it works where it came from.