The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Apologises to Christians
Following the recent court case involving the Christian foster carers Eunice and Owen Johns, Derby City Council, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the EHRC have apologised to Christians and to Mr and Mrs Johns:
Earlier this week the case of Johns v Derby City Council, in which the Commission had intervened, attracted some attention. Unfortunately a mistake within our legal submission led to an inference that we did not intend and which was misconstrued as suggesting that the Commission equates Christian moral views with an infection. This oversight was caused by a drafting error in our submissions to the court. This should have been picked up in our internal clearance process for the legal documentation and does not represent the position of the Commission in any way.
Furthermore, the Commission entirely rejects any view (as reported in the media) that rights in relation to sexual orientation ‘take precedence’ over religious rights. The Commission fully upholds the rights of looked-after children to be supported in their chosen religion or that of their family, in the context of the paramount importance of the welfare of the child.
The Equality Act provides protection against discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief as well as on the grounds of sexual orientation and the Commission has produced extensive guidance to explain this legislation, which was introduced by Parliament.
The Commission has written to Mr and Mrs Johns to apologise.
Wonders will never cease….
March 4th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Interesting. You have to read such things between the lines, for all the important political events take place behind the scenes, and before such statements are issued. This is a humiliating climb-down, I suspect, from the EHRC point of view.
This can only mean one thing. It means that they have been bollocked by someone in the government, and that they have suddenly found the political earth sinking underneath them. It would be interesting to know who sorted them out.
The quick U-turn means that they suddenly realised that they have screwed up. Because in my opinion the EHRC is really an inquisition, a thought-police. All of its victims are conservatives of one sort or another, as far as I know. I am quite sure that a good percentage of conservative MP’s would love an excuse to order an investigation into this cesspool of hate, and to use that as an excuse to close them down. Like all political police bodies, they know it too.
It is good news, all the same — very good news.
March 4th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Is there anywhere that the original submission can be found? All I’m finding is people quoting the word “infect” totally by itself.
March 4th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
In hoc signo vinces
… ‘infected’ with Christian moral beliefs.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), this quango has be a politically-infected pseudo-ethics grandstand for years all the EHRC has ever done has brought the concept of Western human rights into disrepute – concepts that are now regarded as no more than a joke or a convenient excuse to play humanitarian wargames in some helot making political quarters.
March 4th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
“This oversight was caused by a drafting error in our submissions to the court.”
This is the phrase that calls for some elucidation. Does it mean “Someone actually meant it, but it should have been taken out because we knew it would cause offence”? Or does it mean some said, “infection” when then meant something else quite innocent?
Incidentally, what actually did they say?
March 5th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Looking at the CV of Karon Monaghan QC, the person responsible, it appears that she is a feminist civil liberties activist.
http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/Members/29/Karon%20Monaghan.aspx
I really believe that they now think – in view of the lack of backbone in the senior hierarchy of the established church – that they can get away with this kind of thing. Having been caught out, they are now having to backpedal like mad. And I bet they hate it.
These people need to get real.
March 5th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Christian Concern have produced an update:
http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/sexual-orientation/johns-fostering-case-effects-of-the-ruling-and-further-analysis
March 5th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Sorry for the triple post, but I find it galling that Karon Monaghan QC will probably be quite acceptable to the social services should she ever want to foster or adopt children (even Christian children) with her obviously virulent anti-Christian worldview. Would she be grilled on this, I wonder?
March 5th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Somebody must have meant to equate “Christian moral views with ‘infection’” otherwise why was it said at all? Sounds a bit like Gordon Brown using the word “bigot”. “I didn’t mean it really just that it slipped out”. Oh, and some silly ass left the microphone on.
One difference this time – apparently it got printed!
March 5th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
@Cabal: I can’t find it either. The judgment refers to 200 pages of evidence provided by the commission, about 100 pages of which is a EU document by Judit Takacs that I can find, but only uses the word “infect” in the context of HIV and similar.
@Jill: Ms Monaghan is not the person you are looking for. She is the QC who presented the case, but the EHRC submission was written by Wendy Hewitt, interim Director of Legal Enforcement at the EHRC (paragraph 23 of the judgment). A cursory search hasn’t turned up a bio, but there do seem to be quite a few Wendy Hewitts around and I admit I didn’t look very hard.
Noting that religion is a protected characteristic under the equalities act then, were either Ms Monaghan or Ms Hewitt to apply, Derby council would have a legal duty to ensure that they would respect the religion of the child. I guess the council would ask similar hypotheticals to the ones they used for sexual orientation (see paragraph 7 of the judgment), substituting “religious” for “gay”. I would expect that whether or not they would recommend Ms Monaghan or Ms Hewitt would depend on whether or not they could come up with good answers.
March 5th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
TerryB, here is what Christian Concern have said – which I believe exposes the dark heart at the centre of the EHRC:
‘The rhetoric of the Judges and the EHRC needed to be exposed. The EHRC’s use of the word “infect” when describing the passing of Christian moral views onto children is highly revealing. It is sobering that that particular word was used against the Jewish people shortly prior to World War Two. The EHRC is now backtracking and, incredibly, trying to claim that it was a drafting error in their submission to the Court. This is impossible to conceive given the context and clarity with which it was expressed in their submission. Yet the hostility of their agenda against Christians has been exposed for all to see.’ (end)
We have no difficulty understanding, then, why they think that gay rights trump religious liberty.