‘Christian Victims’ of English Judicial System to Challenge Master of the Rolls – today in Court
The following is a breaking press release from Christian Concern for our Nation (on behalf of their sister organisation Christian Legal Centre) which is related to this recent blog post.
What do you good folks make of this?
15 April 2010
‘Christian Victims’ of English Judicial System to Challenge
Master of the Rolls – today in Court
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and several high-profile Christian ‘victims’ who say that have lost confidence in the independence of the judiciary in England, will urge senior judges to stand down from future Court of Appeal hearings because of “disturbing” and “dangerous” rulings they issued in recent religious discrimination cases.
The former Archbishop and many of those who have been adversely affected as a result of living out their faith in the workplace, do not think a Bristol solicitor and Relationship Counsellor will have any chance of a “fair” ruling in his case if it is conducted in front of the judges who, they argue, have already shown a “lack of understanding of Christian beliefs”.
They are specifically concerned by a ruling of Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, on behalf of the Court of Appeal, that Lillian Ladele, a registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships ceremonies – because they were against her Christian beliefs – could no longer work as a registrar.
They claim that the effect of the Court of Appeal’s ruling in December now means that the right to express the Christian faith must take second place to the rights of homosexuals under Labour’s equality laws.
Lord Carey, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, John Glass, General Superintendant of the Elim Pentecostal Network of which Gary McFarlane is a member plus several other Christian leaders as well as Magistrate Andrew McClintock, Registrar Theresa Davies, Nurse Shirley Chaplin, Teacher Olive Jones, Foster Carers Eunice and Owen Johns, Nurse Caroline Petrie and homeless support officer Duke Amachree will file letters of support to a unique application by lawyers acting for Gary McFarlane, a Christian relationship counsellor, that a panel of five judges and headed by Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, should be established to hear his case.
Mr McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, is appealing against an employment tribunal ruling that supported his sacking for refusing to give psychosexual counselling to homosexual couples.
The hearing is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal, but it has not yet been decided which judges will hear the case. Mr McFarlane’s legal team will argue that Lord Neuberger and other judges should “recuse” – withdraw from participation – in future religious discrimination cases because of their alleged prejudices and their alleged “disparaging” remarks as evidenced in the judgment of Lillian Ladele.
The Christian Legal Centre is also running the case of Theresa Davies, a professional colleague of Lillian Ladele who also felt unable to officiate over same sex civil partnerships as a matter of conscience. Rather than accommodating her religious beliefs, Islington council demoted her. The case of Lillian Ladele currently means that the case of Theresa Davies stands no prospect of success. Furthermore, Theresa Davies is forbidden by Islington from speaking to the press about her case.
Andrew McClintock, former family panel Magistrate said:
“My religious beliefs were not considered as important as the rights of homosexual couples. Rather than accommodating me, my employer dismissed my beliefs and I was forced to resign as a magistrate. The Courts upheld this decision and I was not even allowed to have my case heard before the Court of Appeal. I support Mr McFarlane’s appeal and hope that the case is allowed to be heard by the Courts and is given a fair hearing in the Court of Appeal.”
Shirley Chaplin, the Christian nurse at the centre of the Exeter NHS Confirmation Cross Row said: “I have just lost my case in the Employment Tribunal. It was held that I had not been discriminated against, even though I was not allowed to wear my cross whilst other colleagues were allowed to wear their religious symbols. I hope that the judges make it clear that Christians are to be protected from discrimination, just like anybody else.”
Their intervention, backed by Lord Carey, follows a series of cases in which Christians have lost their jobs after seeking to express their faith. Mrs Chaplin, 55, who lives near Exeter and who had worn the cross every day for 38 years, described the decision as a “very poor day” for Christians in the workplace.
The Master of the Rolls is the second most senior judge in England and Wales, after the Lord Chief Justice. The Master of the Rolls, a position which dates back to the 13th century, is the presiding officer of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal.
Lord Carey will use his statement to challenge the Court of Appeal over the making of a series of “disturbing” judgements and being responsible for some “dangerous” reasoning which could, if taken to extremes, lead to Christians being banned from the workplace. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, from 1991 to 2002, believes that court rulings on the wearing of a cross show a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs – he argues that the cross is often worn as a sign of a Christian’s fidelity to Jesus.
In his ruling in the case of Lillian Ladele, Lord Neuberger said that it was a legitimate aim of Islington council in north London, Miss Ladele’s employers, to have a policy “requiring all its employers to act in a way which does not discriminate against others”. Lillian Ladele was, therefore, discriminated against because her view was seen as discriminatory
Lord Carey highlights that in a world of conflicting rights, both need to be considered and accommodated. It is therefore not acceptable that the Christian view is considered “discriminatory” by the courts, with Christians likened to “bigots”.
The ruling also stated that “Ms Ladele’s objection [to performing civil partnerships] was based on her view of marriage, which was not a core part of her religion.” Lord Carey and others would like to challenge how such a conclusion was drawn and whether it is the place of judges to comment on the Christian faith in this way.
Mr McFarlane will be represented in court on Thursday by Paul Diamond, the leading religious rights barrister, and he is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre, which seeks to promote religious freedom and, particularly, to protect Christians and Christianity.
Senior Muslims also believe that Christians in Britain receive a bad deal. Dr Taj Hargey, the Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, wrote last week: “Christianity is under siege in this country. Britain’s national religion has never been so marginalised and derided by the public institutions that should be defending it.”
I’m not going to bother giving my take on this again, but I will post any interesting links here, as I suspect this will arouse a fair bit of comment online.
Telegraph – ‘Persecuted Christians’ join forces
Clayboy – One law for us, one for you: the Carey-a Sharia revisited
eChurch – Gary McFarlane’s barrister Paul Diamond at the employment tribunal today: “There will be a collision between the established faith of this land and judicial decisions which will lead to civil unrest.”
April 15th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Oh I get it. We don’t like the rulings, so the judges must be biased and incompetent?
“Christian Victims” Oh Lord
April 15th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
This has just been emailed to me and comes from Chrisitian Concern for our Nation:
Pray for important Christian freedom case today
Please pray for Gary McFarlane’s hearing in the Court of Appeal today as judges decide whether or not to allow Mr McFarlane’s full appeal to go ahead.
Earlier in the week, and in an unprecedented move, former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey submitted a witness statement in support of Gary McFarlane to the Court. The former Archbishop, along with other church leaders and Christians who have suffered at work because of their beliefs, also asked that different judges hear Mr McFarlane’s case than those responsible for a series of decisions that have found against Christians in recent months.
Please pray that Mr McFarlane receives a fair hearing, that Lord Carey’s request is taken seriously and that the judiciary begin to grapple with the fundamental clash of rights that is occurring within the law and which is currently leaving Christians less than equal under recent ‘equality’ laws.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Gary McFarlane’s case concerns me. Providing sex therapy is very personal indeed and has to reflect inner values.
I am not at all convinced that a heterosexual person is properly equipped to provide psychosexual counselling for a gay couple. I know I would feel terribly ignorant: it’s a whole different world. Sure, everyone longs for touch and intimacy, but the sexual drives are different and I’d assume the turn-ons are considerably different. Conception isn’t an option, and that makes a difference too – if only symbolically, because of course lots of heterosexual couples can’t conceive.
I read that Gary McFarlane “told his managers that he was happy to work with homosexual couples in relationship therapy” so it was just the sex therapy he felt he couldn’t do. And I don’t think that’s madly controversial.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3539422/Christian-counsellor-sacked-for-refusing-sex-therapy-for-gay-couples.html
OTOH, if he was happy to work with gay couples in relationship counselling I can’t entirely see why the sexual counselling offended his religion when the rest of it didn’t.
It reminds me of the story of the Christian B&B owners. If you’re sure that homosexuality is so wrong you’ll break the law not to compromise your conscience, then how do you feel about fornication and adultery? I’m looking for consistency here.
Just as with the B&B people, there’s nothing about how Guy McFarlane’s Christianity stopped him counselling unmarried couples or couples whose relationship was the cause of marital breakdown, both of which he’d come across frequently as a Relate counsellor.
When someone’s prepared to make a big fuss over homosexuality but has nothing to say about any other sort of sexual behaviour, then I think it’s reasonable to assume that it’s not about religion, it’s about personal distaste.
People have all sorts of sexual tastes. Sadism, for example, is surprisingly common. But this doesn’t mean all sex therapists have to provide couples who share these tastes with torture tips. In such a personal area, I would have thought that personal distaste was a very good reason to opt out. I am not, however, convinced that Guy McFarlane’s stance was based on his Christianity. He seems to be using his faith as a screen for a perfectly understandable disinclination to involve himself.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
If we grant exemption on the basis of religious belief, we are obliged to treat all faiths equally. I believe this would give results many Christians would find far more upsetting and offensive than the current situation and that it would lead to the creation of new, bogus faiths to achieve non-religious ends.
April 16th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
“His religious faith is not relevant; it is the application of it to the equal opportunities policy.”
This is exclusion of christian conscience history informs us that when a society eleavates state policy over individual conscience the outcome can be catastrophic.
Mr McFarlane’s conscience has been found to be guilty in law how long before his very being is found to be “not relevant” in law?