ࡱ> [ QbjbjYY [c;p\;p\D  d.$8dfL??>?>?>?>?>?$CF?)?? *:  Religious Literacy for Equality in Religion or Belief Literature Review Introduction The EHRC has responsibility for religion or belief as a protected characteristic, alongside age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, sex and sexual orientation. In recent years it has undertaken eight projects to enable it to work effectively in this area. These are listed below: Woodhead & Catto, 2009, Religion or Belief: Identifying Issues and Priorities; outlines key issues around religion or belief mandate and emerging priorities for the Commission. Woodhead, 2011, Recent Research on Religion, Discrimination, and Good Relations; a review of the existing research on religion or belief and the key issues therein. Weller, 2011, Religious discrimination in Britain: A review of research evidence, 2000-10: an overview of existing research on discrimination and the research gaps. Equinet, 2011; Equality Law in Practice A Question of Faith: Religion and Belief in Europe; an analysis of how directives and national legislation across Europe are applied in practice through cases relating to employment, education, the provision of goods and services and public spaces, and conflicts that can arise between the rights of religious persons and the rights of other groups. Perfect, 2011; Religion or Belief briefing paper; an analysis of available statistics on religious affiliation, attendance, belonging and belief (across Europe), experience of discrimination, numbers of employment tribunal discrimination cases and outline of church positions on gender and leadership Donald, 2012, Religion or belief, equality and human rights in England and Wales; an exploration of equality and human rights in relation to religion or belief through; the state of the law in relation to equality, human rights and religion or belief and different groups; responses to the law; approaches to achieving freedom of religion or belief and preventing discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the workplace and in public services; situations where interests conflict (or are perceived to conflict) between the different equality strands or different human rights; principles or approaches that might pre-empt or resolve dilemmas or disputes relating to religion or belief; and equality or human rights concerns that arise in relation to the role of religion or belief groups in the formation of law and public policy. Human Rights Review 2012; review of the interpretation of Article 9 in domestic courts. General Guidance - Guidance on the wearing of Sikh articles of faith in the workplace and public spaces & A good practice guide for employers and service providers in Scotland; guidance aiming to raise awareness of Sikh articles of faith and concerns which may arise from the wearing of these. In her review of recent research on religion, discrimination and good relations Professor Linda Woodhead warns that: there is a risk that so much resource goes into producing new research that what already exists is insufficiently digested and  used , both within the academic community and beyond. There is a danger of reinventing of the wheel, duplicating work, and ignoring what already exists. It is therefore important to consolidate and take stock of all the new information that has been generated by recent research investments (Woodhead 2011: 6). In producing our own review of the relevant work in the sector we heed Woodheads warning, citing several significant reports and contributions by way of drawing from across them key messages, values and principles which have emerged. By articulating those in one analysis, and in one place, we aim to bring sharply in to focus where EHRC is at this stage on the question of religion or belief. A crucial area of broad consensus at the outset (as highlighted by Donald) is that recent litigation and the frequently intemperate debate that has accompanied it has been unhelpful and is undesirable. A central aim of this programme of research and dialogue is to consider the possibilities for a better quality of conversation - rebalancing law and jaw, and establishing dialogue as a first port of call when dealing with matters of religion or belief. This reflects the religious literacy approach underpinning our work. The term religious literacy has been interpreted in different ways. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify some points of consensus between the different approaches as a basis for a working definition of religious literacy: Religions deserve to be articulated publicly, not only so their positive aspects are acknowledged and engaged with, but also so they can be criticised constructively and risks identified and addressed. Religious literacy has the potential to mediate cultural, moral and cognitive differences and to broaden intellectual, social and cultural horizons. It can also challenge any attempt to close down debates with conversation-stopping certainties and absolutes. Religious literacy can help the development of a level of background understanding, so a person may be able to grasp the inner meaning of literary works, political events or public actions, or the history which has shaped particular public institutions or national norms. Today building religious literacy is a challenge: partly because of disinterestedness, partly just because the world is increasingly diverse, people often find that religious traditions are poorly understood. This can lead to resistanceeven violenceagainst them (and by them) and to missed opportunities to enrich experience. We suggest that religious literacy lies, then, in having the knowledge and skills to recognise religious faith as a legitimate and important area for public attention, a degree of general knowledge about at least some religious traditions, and an awareness of and ability to find out about others. Its purpose is to avoid stereotypes, respect and learn from others and build good relations across difference. In this it is a civic endeavour rather than a theological or religious one, and seeks to support a strong, cohesive, multifaith society, which is inclusive of people from all faith traditions and none in a context that is largely suspicious and anxious about religion and belief. The overall aim may be summarised as seeking to inform intelligent, thoughtful and rooted approaches to religious faith that countervail unhelpful knee-jerk reactions based on fear and stereotype. Our view is that law on this matter should always be regarded as a backstop guaranteeing the rights that are enshrined, but that a simple rights-based assertion of the law tends to end the conversations that are needed. Neither religion nor belief are simple categories. Nor are they stable. Indeed, religion and belief are among the most contested aspects of identity. What is more, they are very often at the same time both highly personal and deeply felt and significantly publicly expressed. It is also the case that religion and belief labels such as Christian, or Pagan, or Humanist, or Environmentalist are in themselves contested. A simple assertion of rights, alongside a prosecution of law, is likely to set idea against idea. Conversation jaw over law seems a desirable and realistic way forward in this context. This is what makes religious literacy so central an exercise. Grace Davie has commented on the lamentable quality of public conversation about religion, just as we need it most. Billions of people around the world remain religious, despite the assumptions of 20th century secularism that it would diminish to a vanishing point. Millions are in the UK. Migration and globalisation increasingly expose us to all to encounter with religious difference and diversity at work, at leisure and increasingly at home. The landscape of religion and belief is at the same time harder than ever to define, as the 2011 Census results are beginning to reveal. Society is both more plural and less formal: more and more of us believe nothing; or something but were not sure what; or many things, as in Jewish atheism or Christian Hinduism. Many people hold spiritual, non-creedal, non-organisational beliefs and views. Others have non-religious beliefs which are deeply important to them, as in humanism, secularism and environmentalism. A turn in one direction to the relative simplicity of a tradition or belief, and in the other to a law which settles rights, will fail to engage with this complex reality. The religion and belief landscape The religious makeup of the UK is both highly diverse and extremely complicated. Britain is neither simply religious nor secular, but complexly both. Whilst the established churches have seen a decline in membership over the last 50 years, minority religions are increasing, as is the plurality of religious beliefs and practices. The 2011 Census shows that despite falling numbers, Christianity remains the largest religion in England and Wales. Muslims are the next biggest religious group and have grown in the last decade. Over 170 distinct religious traditions were counted in the 2001 Census and in 2011 over 240,000 people highlighted an 'other religion' on their census form Meanwhile the proportion of the population who reported they have no religion has now reached a quarter.  Whilst belief in a personal god has declined, belief in a spirit or life force has increased and more and more people describe themselves as spiritual. Not only has what people believe changed dramatically in the last 50 years, how people believe has changed too. That Church attendance and membership have declined, doesnt indicate a simple decline in belief. More and more people believe in a personalised way, without belonging to a religious organisation or group, preferring to practice at home. Davie (1994) calls this believing without belonging. Woodhead and others have documented the rise in alternative spiritualities which have flooded the now de-reguated religious market. (see Woodhead and Catto,2012). Likewise, many people claim adherence to a religion, and may be members, may even attend religious services, but dont necessarily believe the religious doctrines, attending rather for reasons of social integration and community, as a cultural tradition or in some cases because they are forced to. Such examples, Hervieu-Leger has called belonging without believing. Indeed it has been argued that many of the 71% of self identifying Christians in the 2001 Census, ticked the box as a way of stating cultural affilitation rather than as an indication of religious belief, practice or belonging. As belief becomes ever more diverse and complex, the boundaries and categories used to describe religion or belief become ever more difficult to pin down. Whilst religion is a strong identity marker for many, the nature of personal identity in increasingly complex and static labels of Christian, Atheist or Muslim cannot begin to grasp the varied experiences and meanings people attach to their beliefs. Approaches, principles and values The following section draws out the key messages and debates found within the existing work undertaken by the EHRC around religion or belief. In thinking about its mandate for religion & belief the Commission undertook a research project led by Professor Linda Woodhead, which drew out key research and policy implications in this area. (Woodhead & Catto, 2009) Recognising that research, reflection and legislation relating to religion and belief are not as developed as for other protected characteristics, the report sets out the need for improved religious literacy. A further report by Woodhead (2011) summarizes the current research relating to religion and belief in the UK and notes the recent explosion of work around religion and equality and to a lesser extent, good relations, across a growing spread of disciplines, including Law, Ethnicity Studies, Politics, Applied Social Sciences, Social Policy and Educational Studies. Key themes in the current research are identity; its categorisation and complexities; the concept of belief and its interpretations; discrimination, including anti-Christian prejudice and institutional prejudice; religion and the law including the working of anti-discrimination law and clashes between equality strands; the relationship between religion and the State; religion, cohesion and good relations; and research from a European perspective. Woodhead stresses that the development of wider theoretical perspectives is still in its infancy, and there is a need to take a step back and analyse the broader social, cultural, legal, and economic causes and consequences of the unfolding picture. Sharpening distinctions Unsurprisingly all of the existing research has something to contribute to the general discussion about religion and belief in the public sphere. A starting point for many is the confusion and inconsistency of what is meant by religion and belief. (see Woodhead & Catto, 2009: iii): There is no hard and fast boundary between religion and belief. Both refer to orientating commitments, which help give meaning and direction to life. Both have a social aspect, but can take more individual forms. Belief is broader in so far as it encompasses commitments which deny a dimension of existence beyond this world, and which may be actively opposed to religion. Woodhead & Catto highlight that definitions of religion and belief are normative and politically laden categories, but that discussants in their research were not unduly concerned about the use of religion in a meaningful and responsible way (ibid, 10). Similarly, Donald (2012) found a lack of consensus over the role and meaning of secularism, and the relation of secularism to religion. Donald (2012) also highlights employers lack of clarity over the definition of belief and which beliefs warrant legal protection. Identification with religion or belief is a complex matter. Most often religious identity cannot be pinned down with neat, single categories. This makes for very slippery ground when trying to clarify how the law on religion or belief should be applied. Such a lack of clarity around definitions makes meaningful public discussion around religion or belief and its relationship with a secular justice system very difficult. In relation to law, an area of definitional complexity is in contrasting freedom of religion or belief with protection against discrimination.Donald (2012) found there to be confusion over this area as the two concepts do not map neatly onto one another (2012;189) She comments that the requirement to show group (rather than solitary) disadvantage in discrimination cases is viewed by the EHRC and other legal specialists as failing to provide sufficient protection for individual believers (ibid). Also, more broadly, there is the concern that religion or belief claims are dismissed too readily on the grounds that there has been no interference with a right, rather than considering the justification for interference. This has created a lack of faith in Article 9 for use in the domestic context (ibid). These issues are discussed further in the Human Rights Review 2012. Donald suggests the need to differentiate more clearly those situations most appropriately addressed on basis of freedom of religion or belief and those best addressed on basis on non-discrimination. (xi) This is linked to the bigger question of whether courts can or should decide whether particular practices are prescribed by a religion or belief, which is again further complicated by the fluid nature of religion and belief categories and their definitional complexity. Understanding stances A key distinction here is that between an accommodationist and a rights-based approach to dealing with conflict around religion or belief. Donald found a high degree of acceptance of routine accommodation of religion or belief, in contrast to approaches elsewhere in Europe (2012;184). Accommodation was expressed through the principles of personal autonomy and the value of diversity, or of making good business sense (ibid). However, views on what is reasonable accommodation will always differ in any particular context or example. Donald points out that this is inevitable given decision-makers reliance on the principle of proportionality, which is context specific and cannot therefore result in a set of rules or predictable outcomes. An accommodationist approach becomes particularly difficult when dealing with competing equality strands such as religion or belief and sexual orientation. Here questions arise over how far can beliefs be accommodated when they potentially infringe the rights of others. Who needs to make the reasonable accommodation? Adding to this complexity is the intersectionality of protected characteristics. This is an area in which more research would be beneficial (especially on religion and sexual orientation and within religion or belief between religion and belief). Although there are a number of cases relating to the former (see Equniet 2011), further research on both areas in terms of experiences and perceptions of discrimination would be fruitful. With regards to gender, decisions have been criticised by a number of commentators who have argued that the refusal to permit women to wear headscarves is actually detrimental to womens right to equal treatment as they were excluded from employment and education. The following question is therefore whether prohibition (of the veil) protects gender equality or constitutes a form of gender discrimination? Equally there are concerns that a rights based approach cannot sufficiently respond to complex nature of multiculturalism and social identity in the UK. (ibid). Participants in Donalds research suggested that a rights based approach, leading to copy-cat claims for legal recognition and protection were divisive and suppressive of debate. She found that a litigious environment was broadly viewed by participants as inimical to proportionate and balanced decision-making: a fear of litigation was likely to produce knee-jerk responses which tended to escalate and harden divisions rather than diminish them (2012;185). A Religious Literacy approach seeks to create an environment in which understanding can grow and individuals flourish. As such, the approach is in keeping with a Human Rights perspective, which, as noted by Donald, has a more holistic, flourishing focus than an equality lens, which can produce a narrow focus on legal compliance based on single, often competing characteristics (Donald,2012). Knowing the law At a superificial level, this is simply what it says: connecting knowledge about what the law says to the real world by knowing the key cases. But more deeply, the research draws attention to the importance of knowing not only what the law says but what it intends what its FOR the spirit of the law. What are the principles that drove these laws in to being in the first place? Actors should emphasise Human Rights in this context, and underline the Public Sector Equality Duty as a positive framework for a robust and confident culture round religion or belief. An even more challenging issue here concerns the handling of competition or conflict between protected characteristics and this is a repeating concern Key Issues and Challenges in Equalities Law Donald (2012) questions the capacity of equalities law to address complex questions of multiculturalism and social identity in modern Britain or to tackle structural inequality. (p122) This reflects the concern that the nature of equalities litigation promotes competition between protected characteristics and different religion and belief groups, deflecting away from pressing issues of inequality based on social exclusion, poverty and disadvantage. The Equinet report analyses conflicts that can arise between the rights of religious persons and the rights of other groups defined by sexual orientation, gender or children. This is a useful resource for its outlines of the legal framework for each area with interpretation of how the law has been applied, as well as outlining gaps in the current law. This feeds into another area of concern in regard to a hierarchy of characteristics, notable between competing religious and non-religious belief-claims. Some movements, such as the Humanists, have argued that religious belief is unfairly privileged through Genuine Occupational Requirements (GOR) which legally allow for religious movements to discriminate on grounds of (and so to trump) gender and sexuality in particular areas. Conversely, there is concern amongst some Christians over the existence of a hierarchy of characteristics, whereby the current law and the interpretation of it leads sexuality to trump religion. However, Donald found that there was not a broad consensus on this and it was noticeable that Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Jewish participants in this research did not generally voice concern about the  trumping of religious interests. (2012: 112) Some had sympathy with Christian claimants in cases concerning matters of conscience. However, even where they acknowledged that theological positions held by some of their adherents might conflict with gender or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality, they did not perceive this as something that was likely to bring them into conflict with the law. Donald usefully highlights a key, but often unobserved point, made by a Sikh in her report that the trumping is not necessarily to do with sexuality, but to do with secularist values, which represents a European conflict between two opposing systems of thought Christianity and secularism. Weller (2011) helpfully highlights academic research specifically related to issues around religion and sexuality. Woodhead (2011) also points to research (Gellner and Hausner), which finds that it would be appropriate to allow people to tick more than one box for the religion question in the Census. The broader point here is that identities are too often too narrowly cast, and that as the research highlighted in Weller (2011) shows there are intersectionalities which are frequently missed in the headline debates, and which have important consequences. For example, the voices of homosexual Christians, or of Muslim women who can easily be discriminated on grounds of religion, gender, age and race, can be lost in arguments which assume that people typically are protected under one particular characteristic. Nevertheless, the issue of conscientious objection is a key challenge in equalities law. Donald (2012: 85-94) discusses the case of Ladele, the Islington Registrar who refused to perform civil ceremonies for same-sex couples. The EHRC supported the decision of the UK courts against Ladele (Donald, 2012: 92) as her role provided a public service and as such carried a legal duty to eliminate discrimination and advance equality. However, Donald does also discuss the equally legal approach taken by other local authorities who did not state that all registrars would have responsibilities to officiate over same-sex partnerships. Donalds detail on this case forms part of a larger discussion on conscientious objection, as a means for allowing people to legally opt-out of providing services which conflicted with a genuine moral responsibility. A summary of this issue is also found in Donald, 2012: ix-x. Calls for conscientious objection provisions were made mainly by some (but by no means all) Christians. However, concerns were raised about how opt-outs could damage the neutral ethos and reputation of a public service and also how to regulate opt-outs, which has proved problematic in Europe (Donald, 2012: 89-90). Donald (2012: 92-93) reports that no participants argued for unrestricted opt-outs, and that many supported a pragmatic approach, where solutions may not be pleasing to all parties and are contingent and partial, but which nevertheless avoid the need for harmful and divisive litigation. Conscientious objection is an area that requires both more research into its usage and further public debate. Donald (2012) also highlights a lack of consensus over the religion or belief exceptions in the Equality Act 2010: The exceptions in the Equality Act that permit discrimination on grounds of sex, marriage and sexual orientation in the context of employment for the purposes of organised religion are regarded as ambiguous, and subject to potential challenge as their application is not necessarily proportionate. Some religion and belief groups feel the exceptions are too narrow, and others that it is applied too broadly. (Section 6.5) Woodhead & Catto emphasise the need for further research in this area to monitor the working of the religious exemptions. Together, the challenges around conscientious objection and religion or belief exemptions raise the question of whether religion or belief should be treated differently from other equality strands. Some feel that religion or belief is by its nature different from other strands in that other characteristics do not proscribe their holders to act in certain ways, yet this is contested. Donald (2012) found a lack of consensus over whether religion or belief is essentially different from other equality strands and so requires additional protection. (Section 6.3) She also found a lack of consensus over whether a hierarchy of equality strands exists or indeed should exist. A level playing field As noted in Woodhead and Catto (2009) the experiences of different religion or belief groups and of individuals within them vary enormously, yet little research has been done in this area. We know that experiences of the law vary. Donald documents the discrimination felt by some Christians, who see equality law as marginalising and penalising Christians. Several high profile legal cases have been used to support this view, such as Ladele v London Borough of Islington and Eweida v British Airways. However, not enough research has been done in this area to assess the representativeness of discrimination claims. The EHRC Briefing paper for Religion & Belief (Perfect,2011) shows Muslims are the most likely to say racial or religious harassment was a very or fairly big problem in their local area and Christians the least likely, to feel this. (p15). Weller (2011) reviews research on discrimination in Britain over the decade 2000-10. Based on desk research, Weller notes the increase in tribunal cases since 2003 and alongside this the lack of quantitative time series data to indicate conclusively whether religious discrimination is increasing or decreasing overall. The report highlights the increased discrimination experienced by Muslims and spikes in the manifestation of such discrimination since 9/11 and 7/7, and an increase in anti-Semitism. Again, a key message from this report is the significant research gaps on discrimination, that need addressing if we are to fully understand the experiences of all religion or belief groups. Given the complexity of the religion and belief landscape in the UK, a key issue is that of representation. Who speaks for whom in which community and who gets to speak? Even where formal structures are present as in the Anglican or Catholic churches, they cannot be said to represent the diverse views and experiences of their believers. Even more so the case in faiths with no formal structure. As is now widely recognised, the idea of one body or organisation being able to speak for or represent all those who share that religion is nonsense. In terms of representation in the pubic sphere, Donald notes that minority religious organisations, particularly Muslim,s felt at a disadvantage. Likewise, groups in the belief strand perceive the tendency among public authorities to focus on religion with their focus on engagement with faith communities. In terms of the role of religion or belief groups in the pubic sphere, the dominance of Christianity is not necessarily met by other religion or belief groups with calls for disestablishment. Rather, the demands are for a level playing field for all religion or belief groups, with no special favours for the Church. Alongside this, Donald reports consensus that religion or beliefs groups are legitimate interest groups like any other but should have no privileged role in the formation of law and policy (Donald,2012). Woodhead & Catto (2009) suggest that a priority for the Commission should be to improve representation. The idea of a panel survey and bank of scholars to call upon goes some way towards this. From a religious literacy perspective, it is important that participation is improved alongside understanding, with the acknowledgment that the super-diverse nature of lived religion makes issues of representation highly contentious. Religion or belief and secularity Another key area of debate is the conflict between religious and secular values, whereby assumptions are made about the relative advantage one holds over the other. As demonstrated above and elsewhere, British society is both secular and religious in very complex ways. A key point to highlight in this debate is that whilst it is often assumed that secularity provides a value-free space for discussion between different beliefs and religions this is not the case. Secular beliefs should benefit from equal rights in the law but they are also a set of values in themselves, as is religion. Therefore, whilst an increasing number of people in the UK are holding non-religious beliefs the public assumption of secularity as neutrality in relation to policies and the civic sphere is problematic. As highlighted by Donald (2012) there is a feeling amongst some religious groups that a secular agenda is being imposed which pits religion in opposition to human rights. This should be met by a public discourse that emphasises their common concern for social justice. Media representation of religion or belief Religious illiteracy in the media has a disproportionate effect on the perception and experiences of faith communities in the UK. There have been many high profile cases involving Christians in the news which are not necessarily representative of the experience of the majority of Christians in the UK. That said, Donald (2012) notes the feeling amongst some Christians that they are penalised and marginalised by equality law. However, the amplification of these concerns through high-profile cases doesnt mean that such disputes are prevalent or entrenched in society, or that they are insuperable (ix). Donald calls for a more nuanced analysis of this area. A religiously literate approach, with a better understanding of the laws, morals, values and of the Establishment in the UK, which is perceived by many as a Christian country, may lead to a better understanding in this area and help avoid the polarisation of stances in public debate. Weller (2011) notes the increase in discrimination experienced by Muslims and spikes in the manifestation of such discrimination since 9/11 and 7/7. The media effect on such discrimination has been discussed in further research, particularly in the case of Islamophobia by Elizabeth Poole (2002), for example. More religiously literate media reporting on issues to do with Muslims (and specifically by not representing the actions of a few as the view of all Islam) would have a positive effect in this area. Woodhead and Catto (2009) outline the recognised relevance of religion in terms of resource provision, delivery of welfare and services, contributions to community cohesion and as partners in governance. However, these stories of how religion provides positive benefit to civil society are under-reported and religion rarely makes the front pages in a positive light. Whilst recognising that positive stories do not often make good news, the general reporting of the media could be more balanced in how it represents religions contribution to society and this could help to improve the experiences of religious minorities in Britain as well as relations between religious and secular constituencies. Looking forward In 2009 Woodhead and Catto acknowleged that a comprehensive response to the issues, as outlined above, would require changes in many sectors of society. However, they underline the role of the Commission in improving the knowledge of the place of religion and belief in British society. They suggest further research to improve understanding of the religious profile in Britain and of religious discrimination. The EHRC Briefing paper for Religion & Belief (2011) goes some way to addressing this last point, yet, as outlined by Donald, Weller and others, there is a significant research gap. The complexity of the religion and belief landscape and the difficulties highlighted in case law of managing conflicts in this area signal the need for much more sensitive and open debate. A focus on jaw rather than law can be a productive approach to advancing debate on religion or belief. As noted by Donald, the most productive level of engagement for such advancement is with policy-makers, practitioners and managers in the work place, not only with legal process (2012;185) The Religious Literacy approach embraces the idea of rules of thumb in dealing with conflict or debate in this area, for which Donald (2012) found strong support. The series of Dialogues will take this forward.  Talking about Religion in 21st-century Britain: Contested conversations, EHRC Lancaster Seminar 28 April 2009  www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/11/census-2011-religion-race-education#religion  www.ons.gov.uk  http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/#ChangingBelief  There is no EU level of protection from discrimination in all types of education (the law currently only covers vocational training) due to a lack of agreement on the Proposed Directive prohibiting religion and belief discrimination outside employment. However many Member States do provide some form of protection from religious discrimination in the provision of goods and services.  CLG, Citizenship Survey: 2009-10 (April 2009 - March 2010, England), Cohesion Research Statistical Release no. 12, 2010, Table 13.  There does not seem to be much progress towards clarifying the differences between England, Scotland and Wales, which was suggested by Woodhead and Catto (2009) as an area warranting further analysis. Weller notes the lack of evide@ATd m ~ ƹs]M>+$hMh] 5B* OJQJ^JphhMh] CJOJQJ^JhMh] 5CJOJQJ^J+hMh] 56B* CJOJQJ^Jph(hMh] 5B* CJOJQJ^JphhMh] OJQJ^JhMh] OJQJhMh] 5OJQJhMh] CJOJQJhoh] CJOJQJhh] 5OJQJ\hh] OJQJhh] 5OJQJ'jh] U_HaJmHnHsHtH  @ATUVWde m n  $a$gd] $^a$gd] $&d P a$gd] $a$gd] $a$gd] $a$gd] $ a$gd] ~   " m p   ɼ~l]F0+hMh] 56B* CJOJQJ^Jph,hMh] CJOJPJQJ^JaJ<mH sH hMh] CJOJQJ^J"hMh] 56CJOJQJ^J;hMh] 56B* CJOJPJQJ^JaJ<mH phsH (hMh] 5B* CJOJQJ^JphhMh] OJQJhMh] OJQJ^JhMh] 5OJQJ^J$hMh] 5B* OJQJ^Jph*hMh] 56B* OJQJ\aJ(ph   C D qr>?@qr $^a$gd] $1$7$8$H$^a$gd] $a$gd] $^a$gd] 1$7$8$H$^gd]   B C Q t v r︤rT:#,hMh] CJOJPJQJ^JaJHmH sH 2hMh] 56CJOJPJQJ^JaJHmH sH ;hMh] 56B* CJOJPJQJ^JaJHmH phsH (hMh] 5B* CJOJQJ^JphhMh] OJQJ^JhMh] 56OJQJ^J'hMh] 56B* OJQJ^Jph$hMh] 5B* OJQJ^Jph(hMh] CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hMh] CJOJQJ^JhMh] 5CJOJQJ^J 01+ҽңңң~oS<-hMh] B* CJOJPJQJmH phsH 7hMh] 5B* CJOJPJQJ\aJmH phsH hMh] CJOJQJ^JhMh] 5CJOJQJ^J(hMh] 5B* CJOJQJ^Jph2hMh] 56CJOJPJQJ^JaJHmH sH (hMh] CJOJPJQJ^JmH sH (hMh] CJOJPJQJ^JmH sH /hMh] 5CJOJPJQJ^JaJHmH sH =>z|\op !"&&&&&***Ѡzi[PhMh] OJQJhMh] H*OJQJ^J!hMh] B*OJQJ^Jph%jhMh] 0JOJQJU^J%hMh] B*OJQJ^J aJphhMh] 0JCJOJQJ hMh] OJ QJ ^J mH sH  hMh] OJQJ^JmH sH hMh] OJQJ^JhMh] CJOJQJ^J$hMh] CJOJPJQJmH sH !"""&&******,,o.gd] $^a$gd] $r^`ra$gd] $ & F r^`ra$gd] $a$gd] $a$gd] *** +P+Q+,,,-g-h-i---0.1.n.o.44ƳƠxccƏH5hMh] 0JB*CJOJQJ^JaJmH phsH )jhMh] 0JOJQJUmH sH -jhMh] 0JOJQJUaJmH sH  hMh] OJQJaJmH sH %hMh] 0JB*CJOJQJph%hMh] B*OJQJ^J aJphhMh] OJQJmH sH hMh] 0JCJOJQJhMh] OJQJ^JhMh] 5OJQJ^Jo.p.0033444444W5X57 7::;:6;7;O;P;q<r<==w?x?A$a$gd] 444666 77,7775;6;7;P;i<>>?%?x?@AA9BEE0EEFFGGubΥQQQ hMh] OJQJ^JmH sH $hMh] OJQJ^JaJmH sH 'hMh] 5OJQJ^JaJmH sH hMh] OJQJ^JaJhMh] OJQJaJhMh] OJQJhMh] 5OJQJ\^JhMh] OJQJ\^JhMh] OJQJ^JhMh] 5OJQJ^J,hMh] 5B*OJQJaJmH ph333sH AAFFGGGGAKBKNNOOQQRRRRTTvU $1$7$8$H$a$gd] $a$gd] $^a$gd] GBKKKLNNOPRRwUUVVmWXXXZZH[Q[[[.\0\b\z\_Ǹ␅rYrrLhMh] OJ QJ ^J 1jhMh] 0JOJQJU^JaJmH sH $hMh] OJQJ^JaJmH sH hMh] OJQJhMh] 5OJQJhMh] 5OJQJ^JhMh] 6OJQJ^JhMh] OJQJ^JaJhMh] OJQJ^JhMh] OJQJ\^JhMh] OJQJ^J hMh] OJQJ^JmH sH vUwUUUlWmWZZ__ccc~eeff`iaik 7gd] $a$gd] gd] $7$8$H$a$gd] "$ & 0` P@1$7$8$H$a$gd] ___cc!c8c}e~eaiiii{kkk{mmPnTnnnn`qrrrrtttzczN(jhMh] 0JOJQJU\^J-jhMh] 0JOJQJU^JmH sH  hMh] OJQJ^JmH sH hMh] 5OJQJ\^JhMh] 5OJQJhMh] OJQJhMh] 5OJQJ^J$hMh] OJQJ^JaJmH sH hMh] OJQJ\^JhMh] OJQJ^J!hMh] B*OJQJ^Jphkknnnntt'x(x1z2z{{{||23^_ $h^ha$gd] $7$8$H$a$gd] $a$gd] "$ & ` P@1$7$8$H$a$gd] tt'u7uwwwww&x'x1zzz{|N|O|23^ǁҁڈۈììì֛|rn`h] OJQJ^JmH sH h] jh] 0JUhMh] OJQJ^JaJhMh] 5OJQJ\^J!hMh] B*OJQJ^Jph-hMh] B*OJQJ^JaJmH phsH $hMh] OJQJ^JaJmH sH hMh] 5OJQJ^JhMh] OJQJ^JhMh] OJQJ\^J%ڈۈ>?'(<q͎ގ 7$8$H$gd] gd] 1$7$8$H$gd] $a$gd] pqrs͎̎Ύώݎގߎ ʏא@ҽҴ~i~][]UhGh] CJ\^J(h] 6CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH "h] CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hnh] CJaJmH sH (hnh] CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hnh] CJ ho[h] h"h] ht`h] h] jh] 0JUhwh] CJOJQJ$hwh] CJOJQJ^JmH sH  ABCEFHIKLNOPQ$a$gd] 1$7$8$H$gd] gd] nce on Wales and of comparative research across the UK and that lessons from Northern Ireland could be beneficial in terms of good practice in tackling inequality. (p53) Also noted is the lack of evidence about discrimination as it occurs between people of religion in Britain (excluding sectarian based discrimination).     @ACDFGIJLMPQhMh] OJQJ^JaJjh] Uh] hh] \^J ,1h. A!"#$% n"'lգU._xuPNG  IHDRErj@UsRGB pHYs+PLTE00/ !!!>==)))""",++***>>>'''...999222(((777;;;:::???444877$$$111%%%&&&---<<EVwAV]~CѽHn)(D`iĻsxӍ~tWe.Ƃ9ԏxw~BQu4? =WL,ӻ}P7 mg`׷eбIcgL/:73 Pf+ӓNP!I?,x 3jFLGy?sPb_lx fCX8>?kCcO.?|j΋;]2;G7ݾqڑ}G_꯭hB\+paY k;!!w :#UKVy%Vu߾5/(XxZZn˗7^?|t7ҎHٗW(oY !|ȄjJsuƜVv15\W}P4W]!rN5} ׽?]O>%V4|xMQjz˱Y-ܨ{rB!G߁_CE 67G˟A+ؙ%f8<'hArU[k8ǂUrxLoJÁ@ 7Tg‡RAf7ǴgZ:_pRiNN墜R2j7B9,#^̷}Arc)Z@Vac򍃨_~ל-͌$ɮUQ%$ U`3}jψcuAhX,}iUҲ W}ȣ] <GiA)C~7n@bE Rtǖf"Kp ʥLEyD I?Tv67˼3׌ނ"/ Nc]:2$Vm r>8rRc]60sُ=ΪqS}so::AQ A.g bӞ:V*Nˡ`S"e:d\6P_r5UѴ&gET"i |\l"NϘSc.͠ o8:&GSQiPoi5]}.h<f;ɔ(BxP9`~ӷ]i(Cfq#+x/L zy;W XC34*eucrY-JNg*,DF-Li"kl>uUB#:xbPV 'p 0 /+0s,BDMi(E3#lŨ*x_;2Ee/xbfgXO&aI"4~-ɿ|tPOdl,S(W"8ςα- ^ESf_I94/]2v.s^\_ %Qt[yf>\gynebFii zmk.TIY8*+~辔GgrGod|{=9W?|znᧂ#t# 5qNe1 Wf,:?P.M7Oʞ9qciO2ܾc+iИ$O 7|_WUEoNeR*0؀UΞu:W2u`툡$ƣc`I!a?2>弽%[z=Z"9j@xC_V "ێ= \o⸖H_ŇsJ p#;QBe.j{1`0hQ4w>K`7ۛ=)t_Mlnq"PTѽ =hLttϱs #ׅ<{9y(6[6Bbt2`(jFJ] 96&òW, ={[㑞Tb4LtX w6~PM_Q"ruto}{$OXKN1PGfz0d\tu0!8Nm6JѴF[x$Xp?~v_|j1gP7%^Eպ!H^M'> EeC=8DUs;NmqvVl DBZT(a\E؀(AoM})&^v[Q7 ; E;o&H Gac5;!LYNFp <0A ZmUvUo*Gq4 "ގd7b94(zi!W=#IHg&57N$e+ P 5ydwyT5Q-RF&dcQ:/>$ᴡ=]dݳ?&ڱOα<4d00E[-ϵgސ5a* sZĥ--=ĸj6<ǎUًF!i Bز$GFQD6$U[ԋ?,+My"_ȆI(}/ R:#i">Q43vֶJk 5@nFLnJ{Tpl2+5v9ċ0{N%,dSEim5&(br2!Gte$6<%6),7*eB8Qb į uGYSfIr{E TME| NrcnՎltGdZQ@]R0ٽ{}PpekRB/vHܺ|ˮJ'Z>j"b46EocI(̕}ִ:̚+Gh-/3S._/ʥ4 @ Z2d.%h=:df5i9TͲ]hrYI-ߡ9%=;D WsF׸$97Qw&PPT݆O%kopK!4Ɍ}^QߘpcRȎ>\qB$H$l)FI֎p"4P__ﲱ&+q\RU |-I4 @_bkraP,jR?& ];y@2i2cd\6țv9Jx4.PnQR*5-i"UwC F(*ckjJe  bAoY$I|]ݑ=M4 Hq UCi5ZV#QtE[SGIiDkdXkıfӡit^ G[{Q䤿;q<Q-1(;6(2,ޜF{7%td HP``9C6y2y؃&2yFIkQ2Q 4O /ƒN#BizlYgMp#TQJ_SHv)(B:sEJ$ev?JwA N$Q[[Xu,'rSw,B]GRBC@p&ѝfU_)c@q(CkqEuE>y| j:ﬠ*V#R7trlQpTQ]>d\h#[!q?Qr1mxP PO6Eך=r+!9}K9Jm%Cc#\;UB">")Wb$)b d,jExr%rZĵŻ@&ֆ쟰DRP~#Ae=J>9Ucًz@^h109Tį,}h,|?fZUS7!揣fN 8$8+>ۺڴDzѲ5;9&16WZ?k`?Pήt( H$]1H!O $ hMp hݶM-]: pDi(/z2mfK{ KKJ!R ն͗ ϡ>VEHS&G+8gFbfNd7ê2h]Lqw k,{:k_kqRh>h$l* 5~ fąJv؅lO &!ϗEW 2ME{*hKć75_/EF8WE%;C+iQE1Fk$h:VL(p) | UQ$]lbY6p۞ۧ~+)\-ka3/j_ 3Ъr9vиTVae_$0,YX3 m(!{Jf<8ڱPk7;(}*{"Ygu*kPiʄ_7/۽}al쏳,X4s͘}iӖLt!#9:'Z4.:z;k?880(ҝ adtS4t]i2MwOe3cmz}CZr;Jcۨ0 aJNl~•:jEn WƜԩ贼K , H6d7}~N4޷e mo) vl҈z m|dUE's|ꁼ0]f>^wy܏?<+aQd-#UR(4"e3 `1Oe<Tlh]!sR^mn%,r+H (ӎ1!!_#]SGNŁl^|^vm0Q-b}Qg%9B/gHOKQtQќQz3_E{"ֹPԙ. U2 DklS3G7_'i/+|Ly,=;=AG42EAE|If2K^n\:iA ݬ!k覓8UFB<-'i_pЏ֣Ep%8V uȒW)w ^i/(h,&MhޣQ$@ӊ1Yϭ4lS}GQY+1 k)8`})rŲW쾠΅kﻶam8@Wyj%Ҹ$>RRh=!hx"; b`M$z^XzK $+B; /lS!pVn2NbF^GS7J'i]i_PU[p]j+v/K<"?}{XކG+F*6"*łѪtYT6v7\ݡ`sZT|lazx̷!иNa>PK1T_zo5k&zp[bNT-/V_9GVphBemUYm}MD[E2əe;r7}$4NZ:˅VMpb9wK7-=Uax|7}ňJ ǧV:Hl='AX 8CD9|v==:ttoߵm뀰_o7Ow=V3I7#JT8Uq3C耭dJ:F8E0ӷ*a;k+3F|6kfzXlx׶5G 7ً0X!eO#!et7W?/쌬]F/J_'I19! :EZiP=%V=D/-[l4]kn*XBkxp#s׮xkhj/t: qێRnpn}$>zk)&dw0xmd})RV?vM C{C>"Aّ C+D6 '8n\agݒ{}ѫbӌ|xiYl?G*(ί 5hh!;uljhPKڭ P@Q9-9TI^G PsvNz+u%hָM ,ޛsUhKp(6)%wq6qRyP9tDϟ2_d6~cEʃJM7 lW= dYIlS޵J~M~&M*4#kDsD=cO=WE'c5M]!mȎ֗E3u/"+<+U̗5H̃~φڄJa^Q9d,n&.۹eϮg ^U.8}{)Hd=XD@2`rWS:} ?Ej!kC@TˌI5g;P;BqcJpp!Rw-tގ8dUUٗS!JB{`"Ԫ*^$ʐ;WŚPBo|[6t*ۮ܏&7Ԇ"x7ZJ1qO#k%/ ~Vaᧂ _+}b-ć+3N"~x,*h9QjOHϧS_im$Kҁ5z[Xu/Xz5%1_ԢoVSo+NQQ4$O5<lj]w- 8'F;7iY}}=sP.Y04d{hQWQQZh3Ce~{c3mLD#?]d21C y.E>>666111777333===TTTEEE\\\]]]MMM@@@OOONNNKKKRRRIIIUUUWWWCCCPPPSSSDDDZZZBBBGGGJJJXXX^^^YYYVVVQQQAAAHHH[[[LLLFFF___vvvjjjlllnnnqqqpppooommmkkkiiirrrhhhggg~~~aaabbbeeesssyyyzzzwww|||xxx}}}```{{{cccdddtttuuufff0nrB9IDATxyŹfyeA@Doo#&19M1OEh$^ƨh4p* (xTwu,*.֟م0[{wWgI#FQ,nH5!Hĭ1d1b4b4bĐiiF3kdn$Ә #i-0Rda:FLc6T57!ӈCC#L#L#Fv.&qf:N20b#Fguin$Ә #i-0Rda:F F221d1d1b4bĐiĐiW!,Is T'lNknnC#L#L#F F&=a:FN20R#L#F F F2t2MzHuf-0Rda:F F221d:d52bduF F221d:d52bduF F221d1d1b4bĐiĐiĈ!ӈ!ӈCC#L#F F F221d1b4b4bĐiĐiHGiW| jaYda:F F221d:dvx"BnGH`K.b;\P~YPJ&Ge.XF71 c(J^Y#B=,[<mϥhIUOaXQ$O#Ɖ}~ eIjBw7wVUf)F(2H d~UQFaeX:Z7_S$J+u+&CсO@XsYL%G#NR6<(̳>?cY̨QNȷ2k"iܹϭȼk| K_/Sl&9s2z6e@ABHY8<y]e+fv9wkZ"*  B>ޥwOEv>)SP1=[$2fơ9C* Z\'B/o`̳]ϝE؈ը8 jxi7VPLiG+Jՠq< a pцqarTdUȘOduי@jLfA!S!B"uIsVH[ڛ DL2h<<0Qgeg_~9`.2\Ż"|$kJޣWy B`VJpH W邤TPJE&+(*u}ʑob!J>w^9Oj62-2 F>0: 0%?-E'@9`1>cYza 4BDuLyK8ݣO\E%iB, e(<T-)O;B 9 lQo  V䴒tfGmڕ/#Ï> ?O^Q7$LTqjU}91Ԡ(yk#3'9#ІQ#= b8*3 S),8H}Tr&ТU%@=r`Ee&ۭ'rg!=kNFQY[PR5*Z}xQ$)_'`L/ ?L!X1:G\&uί!O<)"U֢.)iz7EKeeWh1|ӬM22I(*n(4|㯾_k h?mּ _xk(y1wr"Qtfi㜹/Z8O~?3fMS?~g1w޼Tz_kzow0zثs?ҒA==wûw̷g${;] Kؾ[Jmw0<)؉OAQm%3|1߯W9@6fmߣ=ڷ!'t/ѫw߬5 8ۻ5ZSYÖ(b]|QϔHԵ8)~pm;oG[05?ؾ| }/Pv8NdP'{;`'aV:V]},B۬9ʡ:?3S6G.]d!~X,K+y=׍Fa2g<9y1A\?S)<=xPBϬu?R,K}謍v=Bx!'`]c!Nr|S'„2j>5sZɌZ.q|Jdyfwr"ˮgN Ƹ4CKd\)R~ݖ*LjZޞK_Ä`j~䒂;9O\t a}%\mSnc t0#Fz7y}=[*vX|9&yv/{ٌu2Y9k`fprDA.qi[}XAIg#v'}ҽCv&Տggu}\:?yG|762Βu^Ȳ(,*X }{ +oL5d٧r4= <,ز'q\|Re$XAΧcKdz@E%tO>Jo>|cJ2T"Ė۾)}2y%ӥ 2 !P\\s^{d'B0N0l#vb,sDk"7sz@2w~*Cr.m婰&RAPxnW/?QQɿXrI{bߛh6Pz xUTa+N$wbȋ" ʫ7ͼ Yg9UX&8\qқځB^I)ज़w-ʽ(.F,2QZQ}N!Ac|oP9zVW;7rq!p3a$t  gJ*h=u(遛+=bH˅thǬ,9sP]\r:zE]4Cuq0u՝>6ܾ֜vͦO?t氅'sKPq(z:F$\}QN[s轜ş%s?=AD/ˈ' ʒ7KL6]vT.zIؑS!s 9+eSAv!)$`k4~fq"d# yVNm̌}[q6KD4r,VtR_\ ]T [cy{DB=F-eQ_1,3 (d6u-QܧHO1Ttt^2wHiTǽF3:>9dHx߱=˵UdIjݔۊ[@{R4^=|OT%mߵr87k|d{0꽥 Zɔ*ϒ9{it7ּc(T:k4K3^oudh ~‹ : !U.x6ZR>/μMj9#oȿY+h_U͹YߙBEȜ?m%SYvMZ7CY(e̚&Sn©s]8uy+=oS0l~K9[`z㫃g'G,g3fݘzJ 2TX({8.&8*Rt64O0=7ɤx.4%3貯=1׏ƚ0ϥdx׳O?hr"q| }ߥ.׭?BrrxY7YGֆczEx!w_=g$׮9#*{N {Ï;çrm@K~&?X~V2 *: G&dbzHhJ^nݨa=qQ|@zSvmko &^}ζ};풙( [!m7qR[27_g1k[F@s, Rίcv Q<ʮ#3JۖʽݐW_1u;qU? B\l!q,Kыr<nc=4"){f&`37qE7&qL( a̚#3oroN~6N;}et+dBxbIY%W/ }QB;2һ0mߪKzz<7%>)?Da$,bՋW/V!lh2 eȬ2!tIn+ (oa.n%35PVz .*fdԔ (G+ڂJvWB-m,y{OwhP@R{̅i.@Ǻ%MoCufYW ;Qe82kve.U O3!LJҍR+m~\N.6>X#OUhkj,`(Bmй[[hi|i">Lu4!}'5&Lue$o`?yJӐdaO5ZjF P+ aQ9o k+(5^uN(܀4=nGͷخy!ɰ1!}']2(͗+f[!ͽό+KDB/WԺBW2M+&+dV2`ѭ?xTڨ0@kRy@D ҟ^&92uCsYgjW 4Xnә<`$(-3)Luqʲ(Z3KmX.+\Zf~ Y}b[c퍀뙾QTqTӤڐY{:3.<o2)~F= @+)߱v:uC펶XҾp Z_7nb= !uϷԕi7;-*8 \i<;i'/a3u%QEnwbANt,w4ZDC2hnycviz4>(! 9l/[\q [>Zi㺏dߕ2As.x%QžvOTCǦI3dv2s!$;ŢN2ZQ$L a@]NqKjߏ%DQ*9PhCǭ V=v 5LvG@݁AWiNH*niEM ܙs&w8Kt. X4%}RJ_Қ3v12kvB;KSe_ό?{0^gtfdڡ( ~d"DMpCrV(E@ Ca.O1/P\%׽xA4b[Q8qn$,W-he+^.^^K=&(,]lEK^tE tAs}{^EV2忧3!rPrgLSkFRCfwFX8Cf MQan] ,?iY8G[v ޅ{c{,.L:Jne$:U6d CEt8bRZC)ݣIhg/2M=Ьw 2y,&s-m,!s;ݝG2BZwqALW<ʱԾP`vH2ur D'7O8'GGsZ1f|Ih]xf ͻa^:}jX`K.];+ޜxn(⪛_C+7Ҫz=tgޏ#hD||K\Ka M9!1:VBd.&@u+3/}s9Ok̛{eeM }J&}Ote<8.YQO3GhW /uoǑ. =:ʰ" Q;gR2b=!ue.ӷߧI$mq~9{\Cc጖/4ᰩO>"}ẘ&*'~s쮶9[!Ip~^_闇`cBh UJ݁L,[YjX&{Ekh&XRhEOB}r-7fz]ܦ3{/Wp5%uQxۍa([J`Q.Хճ c|ƃL2Zq/P<2,bd)((|2\ v~[=4]Ǭ(%d,D0^8,q<. yD_ykbrL$p+%_*ǨGj] ?Ὑ[`Ѭ r۹J֨E]y>,]߇nmèxd9Lj}?$*Dj.c` x͌,Zi'iQm͕qܬiP%>i`uSg䌬p3,ǟ!8`%z k5 (kIɒOĶ룳(b>Vry͚(T0Q?>a tyBM}2#YM%!zw.'1&co %wO=}b}}8un=5KdpwK,|cOkz(wɻϸ{gY%sh2 [S?⼌sU<dsβ,8<^}ʱ e4b]p^-4˻7 :Sy519/ڠk},7r,e@YԒlRAs)Bn7M+- D:_{Voʶ2{<uA[Qv=݇+AADIxxx,ZWdSne9R23NP:! 0%E@Iȷ,"}A' 3%;T'aJ?%aqgރw;E~mE*2b^ *Gvlk!]^HgKIi(fʦg"cwA^R*hcfBF&sIexw:z.t6HD07sY2J+mdeѰZG%1[.fΓNf(V=3hoGaLS tÀ؄~mOT4$-pGW@0JEU OLzSճoSQ6wPNyjݼN1j(l_w= G9!2q+0?|RF+e^:`A2Ъ+yW7jtUL&da7oRgL⾔KC]P:" d tf^f‚~OLg8%374Iz2ێOS2}s'p?oq[|>gz 6G@7c#/$dj{0?=R].$RԲkז|o$%0J7"ɼCNkIt7Km3/fv>Hm5g؇+u.-:Rx0U(0gE褘@/$Ǽ7\4C3 v7MOEje7]rxݰ{7閫a{d KxLd˪߭D@m%DnYfnm֙]## %{|+2<3D偊r/#S\ %xh3$0k682;O;W\5[jWa J"P/'l0O6Rbm֙|r.Pn[ɴECg{HOk#ߕ%KsVB9{t.0}9]kNk|Dg+::T߃% *9'.n1Xd^OUtG-pÛgnn;?"]TV9k#9U$s .j#SȷO\ǧ_:]edhr60" ~coa2Qiv쬓|x{A_ErwP lM`꒬C\.A1Ȣ.SC(j/QZ%^hpV1`GQyTOw}j'OvAbqo(3~^u |f([@\ޟ^ݠ{G׎}>A98.V2L"9q(!Asq? jz[#uRP\ ٶ uGcѹP$8Z23 g \Y;wbJԵ$|;$ӁBpu-0fU&-2~Ü|4euwe>" B8~=n|ȧQ? !#,?)|-YsJ##Z^|԰A*蹌G2R:Ey>A#K ^.Uۂbʏ/AZܧblͲ©`m.i3)bByey0L[]zSzr3, Xyn9YJAǞ E(tsǪ{4szrᇞo#k3IJE]ICDž@$SG](qle~_ r}_b$ŷD+A1}٤xlW0_77*X;/wEYDu_HM OmSzlS:OH1u,)gp(~;ːC(u[ Gu=:΁}QQF#T%_S}]"p6,Cɡ? #z|8u^parϼ ug5ũ)p-5/,g'O~ɢ|o?3C'za {O[o< 2|۴2'jRq''/x2T&Oz.3\Y`>T9p/ez_\'%>K˼`>ي3L~ 8kz_S/ &^zׯo:žlyweWNH@gv62aI :w֓ ,!!(!$_`IvPUn3RkH˼ {ޤ1xUHUus(D 5zvZ:Ua%\s!@|rYQ¦$^ D8-jQGBOH0dVΔi}G;tqAI1zN(  u?{OEBfTe"Q%NDja[9 vVāh `a@XzOSFQbN HOjA={`F| :qYE%G_־&Hqȃ!su @g磲*"ho;LףSovWb%0,6 %dz9Q:XC_īdyUYw%VQzY c,(U|j,+qh˷vA ?4i%v}2|wЊ0-<,{|ʰt5KLt$`CV!>XHY7ڱso"1Je9"J %1x̶i"[8d0 K5@~TcY!s;TF?9,ҍڥG,qrCMx~t $dqK>5Uo>ؔ:j]๧.]NyEA&`77:kTnɳG,}pyz5њb?S󴺄UK^[!Vp@x/ u=*QoE+9zVǽTVGJ7-tޏO}#/Ź>G=C+X.>C2{w{.GO١1r{\+̃>u l`p>u2į>O~?Y-cU*L^[[W{ c^,+Q1i_0+NJfe>l#4JLrGLGo2zk(d|kޮ#a=_CSfD?؋Z ;\=s7(Ir,𔺂OE>FuXÕPF*wBX|ȵw? Y&`r}ܘefv]RgNI.=SG6i#$o`=O~' B-O7w= N!dݫՒW=ÐGvMSw 8cL|᭶O/W_vث"us/FN$s^܏8ԡxl}'!jѵW^rŷrC`֨f("#?G%YUРý`U_ 5y'bR W^$x!5PW#tx^Z':S=`_GiˏJ-JOG;6y'yD zj>Ώn޻:z >xd@uCf'!3Gyph8ˠ!zs$'Y^yev]rͽ6%@S,Qo6$Q\1tGyxOɭmd1iDީ@^ #x&5Ȣgp\ScD<˲a,d ~ [wg wSdbD:P,}*;䷕s5Fc]Brˉ\͝-[-w0[4A4U.?Zph/(6yײZH>ӱ+cx w1XCfၶ^:Cr XS<54ؖhe tSQLߵ~đXH@O_'dC䲔cmVٜuS9ԗ+Bz|+|a XSm|'EKey0B#͠M/(Cf!3CE“&sr=Eߓ[Pꯄ|9i ҥnNY "m !76o\N%^v?ɓnŭdr~OM"Lk˵ {U:Wf'8Ⱥ(m>Qj2En y3y8g?~${E+-|̵SR/A.f^4(Ea\E@JgBDPd^I8+]]fˍ񚣭z |YC~3ae4Kj%s*z {]Jv "l8y1_JXCf!S? ٕ2].q4zpҙcyrv8׀˩AlP;pfr(ˤ͚m?uCW@֘ƙxk:f5Q{X\y]e?!+SGCfg!GU:!@ q՟2iLe}. !Ż!?=vHˎ&ɜߦ3o\BBf X JJV>V"ΗOLʳ2< TlVꃕ]N5"=",:,Go ݥW6Kh竛JL2y+nE m#X%Lj(l3T$ag 2[/./b<Yd~d2z656pjOggs3K,V'tF3?µZ]ġwf_2d7I]`i S̮h; [}00CfҖzt\ R (|}Ȥ J&e~&yA+h=#,_HS (YÝ ZaORvg'R3!(7X΢3u/;3}o9{͐QoriSEzv=WdrI3!oIh%*xzՙk>3?7nsr-Id#ϱ1lcE&O7+ Ǟ)v itK2"~ J2Lfo")977h}d^ yO%D=p" w=kʨ!q_ʝ /N?9Uu^uE,vتy+fr eϛM_1/Ӗ-T@$sy?-V,]uj a#_ ґU'*-l&8c ]ϚC^!}uWAYm۸ny6*h[#$J8m DХk8tA &aZ=wuP$2͖" 21,VBR4谱`&,Y:Ľa\Vvw-2~.kŨRC(Jce9Hw﶑ѝ8^aSwqz"=.Mp:.( ^iNj@!z:OV+ _zt\}S.:^g(5,/ FF)/q\mY#'X:25h*`֨F/LEnju'*B/Lwe.)ٽi`$R$:3*|$]f>۲J+"ۙK5%(羱OG79'ݍ*N&=v߰+ְznaճݴNjZŢbኵ" <Ė>':Ҕֱu *Oi\$nV6X" 땚m%3VfzX}M:L=]ʪKJl@]u[Ο畴PC77 %mW@d*OOH{RhSq3QkiHU"ۨZ'S/V߆'K_T"JD!SGlG5Z >ĵ:8Xٰ6Jm=u+5&*9R,"t%1)fm-%*t̩vOvSA\\zN=/EgD0 pHYs  $tEXtSoftwareQuickTime 7.6.6 (Mac OS X)_tIME %Ew IDATx] cY=w}R&"3$R%K#&$,& TɚD"Mh~[]I3}νy}~=iβQ1ߞ@QA`T8D:FQA`T8D:FQA`T8D:.Ɵ,Ь. ǖ=G)D3- z=t\eȶ brA˹ BXLa?'ܒ_R9Xk2~?iHN<?5 ۊ4$NI'ir u?S5TO8ǏS+Ӗz|9(w}*uB :BZZ:( D(RfRs;ҶA]FG?ϲχ:nwK#;|DkYf^}Ju(.u. in4E+4D%D0Ed@1Q<ґeq$ y1*Cm#& ys1fS/{}vη0u5?%AOObdw2jGn#ctyD*_WG?䓯}~ښU:n=:@tH+D"pQG d`^C;JZR( l;6JX$S*^4UP@KtFD!'&;!/N6,q!'u8-lM ZTsvNݣ8Giʖ$ a"O"&\ 8ZYx"ugh;dQ(Hޏ\uvs2̟o\b[VB^f;e$%XBp(7SQhԟ!@Ba,;&LCr>0"6F^I2 c4 JW7L(l75g\X, ;Co\XGp(M 2߅OeNeNc7ZdtZpc!NyK5&yG`^͒cDRGt^4dؠDeҷt]1[ "%X}J(djL1&nyD+-}~.F<7CTMj7&6'˄y.89YL`Om9$Q8ZlbhҦ襵D!Ku6;Me %_b.z0\\^4=DzQ:ߠe{ai!DpXx;H."-V0ЈqbѠ0דI$DuWB%6̑bSR`Dx< 9qVMc~"rdvGC;Fkc 'r* fuCsߑH6o/IjQS8_|ˈpa{UaA>24k+נ'x*K c&! LGꈑC&(FOE^>lz&UZB$vYY]kvBV0:Q|ܤYىguװ:NId'~*InрdGQ~5,]!6'w QwzM`ܥp[:Ƞt#"5IDIj ;Ɇ؅]?KƩͺbՏÂݢո}@Wdr|[E69qytq|4D0j,&X4blw摔nM*=d5Gj`*kPj3mvd-?$OSK1^ ]fPUWwU=IA,~%u .,'ݏx,H"Db)r(#GKy^ZHa@tE*pД 7/k~X2n&+uJK Q%3!` .Nv%%Ȯ' EdZ6tF4Qi)gPYBCćA\ǟA/&,Crq͊!ȣPZu( [ЂDI>ol~.ŒscߝF6@ A HK#&7= az_ Ca#%8loT>_%:'qH~xCC%jö4L=+.CLG xDl]Tvqªql=.ɦx< ^l6tC_ؾc+-Na Qnuyyf_|^;5j@$V@0lV* '9 ŝ@0hqp%]_Oy]ܪٸ`iL${Ch,‘<{Exh3=F=&8ԫK*8"ꍁL1{? ^+N"F7st3b2]-1~L,٬Uؾ0ƈ#:-m#~FX 1ho>DSn!2#`]u9KF(Tw݇W'Ic^5> <#y?z70+i-tGHmE1d8ILy { ~F+̞39 H0dpGV!¢1t6ܚ4AFЩ9n /}ό7t~-ŰSN@1\;ۤ.A]L&H"n:v|`Q̕M[>Duq _óϿےcb=dw*"ۜۃ#zɉv ~XrcrX塸8_R m3ϸKߓEy_Dĭne|z8,P`"}< qA8Vع} ^7'Jj3.'FF$\jGg8q1oSNO0ͭ\}e|lqMONGE Ǖ* 0q,[\(Al4-)MAI{˹[z2dd{6!481rS&ʥ+P51HB'FBN 4 󾞆D#5E ^Ad% -=}DBQ{~k"6|%תS,Y!<> 99@OƖ-'#.!Lc_YaP`+Wy>*>\3mҤ Fs"*KĦhvR ,^򍲹B{ J$+.]ط{7xi0>c[,Y |lY:vlهUPb=B--buKAb5BqR=K/{^s^dL#@~wTI<<oD!6V;XEb(l[|A.DTFb~8wlFj6b YYV葠\;RU.&]?D:[%$+c^wg}2iÛ_'V121]vzr|;3 z\i:{3УF#e/w#)b?˭"Fuk‚B$C--w7#?k*<^oEH0ns4ps3 Ec!dPٰ}yS"čYYb'8#+[;wlkFxܑ8. _KaՊ5V<)D[GWiH0dAU &$Phm01gXl3 oUkRvU9^9֬Lz"Ah#vXkd`Spe-аQBDm۱o/HĆ&L*<>M|swF6]]mkd'_*@袋ERáBtoM޽ʬ V oMWpZa) "Yj%vE1RDJڠ$0M~ұ&/:~ sAqd{ń^B'b(C0/iSa_ȑbHPC9Lp]<;}|>Ͽ챫V1ݵj)0ܵq%%{]3BNעAC[@'QL_Rt8Uʻ&GUX7f6mA*Pv#3O?.DϰhrZA|xsɎ1R$Tq"rM=qK;L~Qu9!. fIr.|2,_=qrF戫0d]x{,,Z =*ؽk;{=>@/;H>|l$^ըY&o>Oe榀~?C;Gb5%OnኡJ՚ط'T@DB8Jq)FmSz՚("tPA]8d٭Z֮"EZ&+3SDVN@knZj 6ُ_H ܋}z#9-IQ*f$8<&/B,^^o@$py dݵ# #u]]^dfDUs.DLOJ)D9H@RhO"=,$lG[Lk U M"/M>K'qͫ:"|̘,6<_`1L8$4{BF 3q\&t"$A<~j*y"A>ۓ.4GhҺv3$ sL!I-#qP1d\/m:9-MD}4ڝ I1'x Q_ FTmuKRu;Ygա brɅ.K?,u\PN sB4ݸmʫU 䧭##c+9@Dꦴ-_'Exo˂*PHWS_,NI} JHPpXSWDǦAKn[e$B=BiJIƒf1][γ"&U&%yzxT.] {\/ !N1E`aG%Ӥl,,CH$|B Ÿ}j y},1AZ"v\2:fű/bɲEhڴ9 {/ĉSɘ;3LIu3fOfc;Oq֯DfNd+ۧ5b3RK#)TcJ(uj-vUJة%/okģ|cl„b ^0M4"hYj#*U3Ofk!ZDSZj ql" 6?$&a]tt Ӧ=Gi3i^/ `ƌI8m\p~GLzub^xх[v +Ӊ($* I?o@tD8o-RxjȬ}>g9BB{ES钎Xl4l^ UF+:ٴ~; ޚ.z\s>KÇ?{}!ŤO`sK( a;^ĄW#XLH3{1c#È%%1)baHƕќ y@ٱ[sHHCE•my-/]3!CEQ{Ę?Ħ-? (,+੧] `lJXxcΪ + 6~"8ST絗\ћS& #@w ^dbʔu|i裙6'h!!5CV)$jC*]0ҞDʟФ;yr'Rj"B^K%̤VO\7 YA@623Iצ --C\ p-AV K/YD|G bX'4k>}~FZ:I''- &U Vm!I#UQ9ϟ M/WGO#WKn!vl·M>FC8hNϯ(-pI1=ƌch"BҕUWbW#=A9sF M% bBqࡏb+1Oh훱bw<8i I/KAT Sq(TFcqxJ _@}esi $*.C,&8[ʀ_0G=qMG$ld)r8{ z:qj9Qz.LroPV#$t$Kdkߨ>J-6f\YFg,^3AJi^'8rв}dGR"Ul` hQƾK"'8#AR@VDur'V*U ?vlBOHӲ)PswIQĭ"vJDؠb(* AXM,,ד:(h|x{o.L_AVvmsQIo,,rH+qY6!7ŤU9 'siD9 hTt;IMA4Z$/&7j1 $p+$) Ud\Bxiz<Ts"\(5ּ[D=ܳ8 7:sD;\"F$Rqy&FmIb`9`)taX6VY, LCg?,+SbT)лVV.C&8\ƝEܖޜ/F0$"b+p\sv#a5ŜIAK˔!D;TW %|c Kg#JߥkJM8Hl˭$/ 1p*XC02K8RʯZ%<[bՖ(.K-.D$"rda3}Yxkҡ,葚>kP`mfMPV}]WJ;T@ITZMI0݃6bv{ڨ'T\h{׭[=$GD:xH݂Mv"|nU*ɗ^&04j׭F!.ڵP(D r=6[!Pu4 -B9?+m鎑t‚|PV:9;Y7e( "M0}i*,KA)4UUOiciQNɠPߑ+f5?N2z#=;!}n!Co-%ĹEY}^+N//N(Xn苇f^ ?8cIB٣B2n<3z2rvk"O 3P ݯ+Hs{1yh}f}?sf/v眎M#re0#U3A[TB7͹ {vE*u =7_ϕ VgA/Bz1w0>x'Pfeٽvlۇ[nMĘ>&,'DJn\U*II?XumUCPZ _֣UD%{㬶bmSG<8Xtp9sqא0+ 5awoo$XD*P^=<$ Hløf~sw.{^7c7.Xf 6W_~Oņhyz#oVѕɌO3~eQTX>};&pE`ޝDz4mrIrӥE#I^+kx1xFY˙Db\N]zj *;&K&Teay*T&)J{íC=z#D.]Ԩ~u;ջ]ĝ۷JǓW=/!#)-X<0R? ';7 &ӧLJ~I'W$V>pPٶ {.'p4mQKXTޛU_~9c_M O_=VR1\߽d.(^/Mi"BPN_]1鍩H[!K𷿝'>ɰȑ{DvHn"u Ꝅ BƳg/z]bviؾm3@\ocKE>'5zĄ /aZCw+w70kK$uyk+IH"EC\R|lffda޼(˓4>GOgFT&H1!muiޛt kYabj#vTǤKKJMrS<p`XDw0SR]N9$#Nj R \GFCI>6;C߉W_ujլ'Dbt Km %/=?KLMHR.##[W:22q-xX =[ ٰ_ :;n!V$=y[Ѯy8{e}8 ZiZs ijs˘ʫqF47Z-B0ax[py [nG=7m7ppY$p;GCͥTc +#QX_a=Ik^; hw6TʭqU974CTmk4ny3뭂LvxuZ7 0yO܊w{>DF=,{-v'LnYMړt$Zt .M@-'j&Ÿ%۰ukw-ns-f*eU&! Z':w~'GEЮRCi~Q wמK$IZ$QgAwLs=2H;dj)$$ad/1 Po?ObGƞ=Ѳix1:zT49tdojђL N/BioG|@˩bʎ09~rN!۩}J͘Aɀ&ڂTzqw1 pKzm@ dnHa[+]%K?,XAlϟ%k{H "T>@PFZc|@hN@'_NBR!Vk\lt%%AjrV_SA i"twi'vԖ3r:9⯚mA*! ?,^GZa8&VMٹ;гՋ:Ր'ۼ+DZհ¾ҿ<[{-+Qt`Uv I:Fx8- ýT1GM:k6l^`T8D:FQA`T8D:FQA`T8D:twQ& IENDB`s666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666p62&6FVfv2(&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@_HmH nH sH tH L`L Normal$CJOJQJ^J_HaJmH sH tH >@>  Heading 1$@& 5CJ \88  Heading 2$@&CJ DA D Default Paragraph FontViV 0 Table Normal :V 44 la (k ( 0No List 6B6 Body TextCJ \>@>  Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ Footnote ReferenceH*4"4 Header  9r 4 24 Footer  9r X@BX qvList Paragraph^m$CJPJ^JaJXoRX jDefault1$7$8$H$!B*CJ_HaJmH phsH tH HaH *Footnote Text Char OJQJ^JDrD 6 Balloon TextCJOJ QJ aJ2o2 >0A1B*CJ^J aJph:OQR: >0Pa1dB*OJ QJ phB'B =;Comment ReferenceCJaJ44 =; Comment TextNN =;Comment Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJHjH =;Comment Subject5CJ\aJZZ =;Comment Subject Char5CJOJQJ\^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭VvnB`2ǃ,!"E3p#9GQd; H xuv 0F[,F᚜K sO'3w #vfSVbsؠyX p5veuw 1z@ l,i!b I jZ2|9L$Z15xl.(zm${d:\@'23œln$^-@^i?D&|#td!6lġB"&63yy@t!HjpU*yeXry3~{s:FXI O5Y[Y!}S˪.7bd|n]671. tn/w/+[t6}PsںsL. J;̊iN $AI)t2 Lmx:(}\-i*xQCJuWl'QyI@ھ m2DBAR4 w¢naQ`ԲɁ W=0#xBdT/.3-F>bYL%׭˓KK 6HhfPQ=h)GBms]_Ԡ'CZѨys v@c])h7Jهic?FS.NP$ e&\Ӏ+I "'%QÕ@c![paAV.9Hd<ӮHVX*%A{Yr Aբ pxSL9":3U5U NC(p%u@;[d`4)]t#9M4W=P5*f̰lk<_X-C wT%Ժ}B% Y,] A̠&oʰŨ; \lc`|,bUvPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!R%theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] g$$0%OhjQrCFQ ~  *4G_t@QIKMNOQSUWY[_ o.AvUkQJLPRTVXZ\?b$'lգU._xu".;b$;KԉFE ;b$ľ?ZA=d:(;@@(    c fA?.BPicture 2>>P`TP`T>#" ?  c fA?.BPicture 3S`TS`T"?  c fA?.BPicture 455S`TS`T5#" ?B S  ?Q0Saq"nv ^ f Wb3cBCEFHIKLNR :8Hw跤xr3#r,+2,"-W{=8&-MnVV C_uP!lAy^#9S< sh ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. ^`OJQJo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o p^p`OJ QJ o( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o ^`OJ QJ o( ^`OJQJo(^`OJ QJ ^J o(o P^P`OJ QJ o(hh^h`OJQJo(hH 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJ QJ o(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJ QJ o( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJ QJ o(h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ o(hHohp^p`OJ QJ o(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ o(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ o(hHohP^P`OJ QJ o(hH^`OJPJQJ^Jo(- ^`OJ QJ o(o pp^p`OJ QJ o( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJ QJ o( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o PP^P`OJ QJ o( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo("  pp^p`OJQJo("  @ @ ^@ `OJQJo("  ^`OJQJo("  ^`OJQJo("  ^`OJQJo("  ^`OJQJo("  PP^P`OJQJo(" h^`.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.hhh^h`OJQJo(hHh88^8`OJ QJ o(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJ QJ o(hHohxx^x`OJ QJ o(hHhHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ o(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hH^`5o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.^`o()tt^t`.DLD^D`L.  ^ `.  ^ `.L^`L.^`.TT^T`.$L$^$`L.h^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-h^`OJ QJ o(hHohp^p`OJ QJ o(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ o(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ o(hHohP^P`OJ QJ o(hH^`OJPJQJ^Jo(  ^`OJ QJ o(o pp^p`OJ QJ o( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJ QJ o( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o PP^P`OJ QJ o( ,+_uS< "-wlAyW{=VV-M:xr3                                     ,           .VZ@BJRv\.R|wRm"E                  fR        *p!        ,         X        ] z@L STQ@,@\@x@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial7@Cambria7.@Calibri5. .[`)Tahoma7GeorgiaC ArialMTArial5MonacoO.  k9Lucida Sans UnicodeY Praxis Com LightCambria[4Lucida GrandeCourier New?= *Cx Courier New;WingdingsA$BCambria Math"1hZ#HZ#HLp CLp C!24 2qP?'% l2!xx Literature Review PlanHowardTimothy Stacey<         Oh+'0   @ L Xdlt|Literature Review PlanHowardNormalTimothy Stacey2Microsoft Office Word@@<[K@<[K Lp՜.+,0 hp|  C Literature Review Plan Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F@)lK1Table;GWordDocument[cSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q