Nadia Eweida, Shirley Chaplin, Lilian Ladele and Gary McFarlane in the European Court of Human Rights today
Today the European Court of Human Rights will hear complaints in four applications that UK law has failed to adequately protect the applicants’ right to manifest their religion, contrary to Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
I’ve blogged on each of these cases: Nadia Eweida, Shirley Chaplin, Lilian Ladele, Gary McFarlane
The National Secular Society and Equality and Human Rights Commission have both filed intervening submissions under Rule 44 §3.
Obviously opinion on these cases is split, with some viewing them as blatant anti-Christian discrimination, whilst others view them as Christians wishing to maintain a privileged position.
I’m not particularly sympathetic with these cases as I’m not sure that Christianity was ever supposed to be about ‘my rights’ and the world was always going to have enmity with Christians. I don’t remember Jesus or the disciples rushing off to the law courts over their rights nor lobbying caesar.
One of the major difficulties in lumping these cases together is that two of the applicants were employed by the state (Ms Lilian Ladele, a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages and Ms Shirley Chaplin, NHS nurse) and two employed privately.
Ms Ladele refused to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies and Ms Shirley Chaplin refused to remove her crucifix for health and safety reasons.
In my opinion if you are employed and paid by the state then abide by the rules and laws of society, and if they should contravene your conscience to the point that you cannot fulfil your role, then you should find alternative employment.
Gary McFarlane was sacked for refusing to counsel gay couples.
The case that I have most sympathy with is Nadia Eweida, the British Airways employee who was asked to stop wearing a cross at work. To me, this may be the most clear-cut case of religious discrimination and that is because of a potential disparity between the treatment of Eweida and other employees of different faiths.
The argument in Eweida’s case is that if other faiths are permitted to wear religious paraphernalia, as they were at BA, and this does not constitute a health and safety risk, then it is wrong to discriminate against one particular expression of faith.
We have to remember that in Eweida’s case the tribunal used the argument that there was no religious discrimination as “Christians generally” do not consider wearing a cross as a religious “requirement”. We have to watch for judgements using this reasoning, as it is secular courts pontificating on theological necessities. Complex and fraught indeed.
Also individual rights and freedoms do not depend on how many people agree with your conscience or speech.
Anyway, it will be interesting indeed to note the outcome of this and even if I’m not entirely enthusiastic at least the Russian Orthodox Church is supporting the case.
Tags: Christianity, Law Moral Ethical, News
September 4th, 2012 at 9:09 am
I think you are mistaken, Stuart, in your assumption that these people are fighting for ‘my rights’. What I believe is important about these cases is that the Christian faith is being squashed in this land, and people with anti-Christian values are imposing legislation which forces Christians to act against their conscience.
Since when has Christianity been ‘all about me’?
As I have said before about any form of bullying – if it is not stopped, it will get worse. These cases may not seem important in the overall scheme of things, but if they are lost the anti-Christians will have won, which will give them fresh impetus, and worse will surely follow.
September 4th, 2012 at 10:13 am
I have a suspicion that these cases are being coordinated in the expectation that they will fail with that failure being used as further evidence of persecution. The real situation is that the cases have no clear merit, except in the British Airways one which Stuart rightly points out hinges on who decides what is a religious requirement. I suspect a court won’t be willing to get involved in that as most religions have variations on what they consider a requirement (Muslims and full face covering being an example).
At the root of this, though, is a feeling that these cases are not organic. They are more like theological ambulance chasing with people encouraged to come forward to have cases taken on their behalf. If this sort of thing was widespread we would see more actions brought by individuals without the assistance of these other organisations.
September 4th, 2012 at 10:37 am
In hoc signo vinces†
Not wanting to put words in your mouth webmaster, but I think your article hints at the bigger conscience and discrimination picture – at what point should Christians war with the State in self-defence.
How can you lead by example when the very conscience of the example is being outlawed, in consequence does it not go against Christianity to roam the World in a permanent state of (suppressed) Christian unconsciousness?
This is a question that has vexed me for a long time.
September 4th, 2012 at 11:29 am
@Gordon,
“At the root of this, though, is a feeling that these cases are not organic. They are more like theological ambulance chasing with people encouraged to come forward to have cases taken on their behalf.”
That is the point to bring human rights principles into disrepute in the minds of the general public in preparation for the destruction of those values.
The human rights ambulances and the obligatory ambulance chasers whizz past the dispossessed of Scottish social housing schemes without a moral glance.
September 4th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
“In my opinion if you are employed and paid by the state then abide by the rules and laws of society, and if they should contravene your conscience to the point that you cannot fulfil your role, then you should find alternative employment.”
Wouldn’t Hitler have said the same, as an excuse for expelling the Jews? Indeed is there any evil that could not be made endemic, any minority could not be persecuted, if we used those words? Every persecutor in the world passes laws that he knows his victims must break, and then shrieks about “law breakers”.
It is the hallmark of a repressive state that it forces Christians to choose between the law and Christ. No normal state has any need to do this.
As for ‘my rights’, this is all about politics. Law in this land is created by court cases. What they’re trying to do is NOT allow “Christians may not work in the state sector” to become the default position of the law in this country. And that, surely, we should all cheer them for.
September 5th, 2012 at 12:37 am
I think the real danger here can be found in Jill’s phrase above: ‘anti-Christian’. I think it would be very difficult to prove that any of the cases noted are concerned with people not being allowed to practice their religion. Where does the line come between the freedom to practice religion in the work place and excusing bigotry and prejudice veiled in piety or allowing obnoxious members of staff to get away with disobedience? There seems to be some facile belief in some Christian circles that just because someone carries the name ‘Christian’ that that person is above reproach (I wonder how many Christians themselves would give such a liberal application of unquestioned virtue to members of their own congregation (usually hot beds of carping and bitching about the petty failings of one’s Christian neighbours!); yet seem happy to do this to some professional martyr, just because they are a useful ideological pawn and means of furthering the self-magnifying myth of Christian persecution in Britain?).
I wonder how many who comment or blog on this topic have actually read the original legal rulings (most are or were available on line). What is striking in the case of the nurse and air-stewardess, is that neither were commended for their behaviour as employees – indeed one had a track record for being a difficult person to work with and manage! While I am not unsympathetic to the idea of calling into question an unequal application of a company’s policy, when it comes to allowing Muslim headscarfs while not allowing an employee to wear a trinket around her neck, it hardly constitutes an ‘anti-Christian’ policy! As for the nurse, on several occasions the health authority offered reasonable compromises, however she, on the advice of her ‘ambulance chasing’ ‘Christian’ legal advisers, refused to accept these compromises (despite the fact it is common policy on some hospital wards for staff to remove jewellery when at work).
The Christian registrar happily signed Islington Council’s Equal Opportunities’ Policy – a legally binding agreement where she stated she would not practice discrimination in the provision of the Council’s services. Perhaps she should have thought about what she was signing! And given the bread and butter of a registry office are remarriages, it is rather odd that this strict interpreter of Scriptural values concerning marriage would be involved in marrying divorcees, in light of Jesus’ views on such behaviour. Did this registrar ask to only be allowed to officiate at first time marriages or the marriages of those whose grounds for their previous divorce were unfaithfulness? I suspect not – I suspect she didn’t give it a thought.
In 1993, as a student social worker, I attended an interview for a placement with Relate – at that interview I was asked if I would have any problems counselling same-sex couples; hence I find it rather hard to believe the conscientious Christian sex therapist – working for Relate almost 20 years on, wouldn’t have been asked the same question at interview. Tho’ it seems this man of strict Christian principals had no problems giving sex therapy to unmarried heterosexual couples – which rather calls into question the integrity of his Christian orthodoxy! And again, the fact his hypocrisy was questioned, does not constitute an ‘anti-Christian’ policy.
Is it ‘anti-Christian’ to challenge these – shall we say ‘cherry-pickers’ of what aspects of the Christian religion they choose to get haughty about and the ones they conveniently forget? We are – thankfully – emerging from a time when the ‘race card’ could be conveniently played when poor employees were challenged in their work. Is that now to be replaced by the ‘Christian Card’? Whereby crap or difficult employees can claim discrimination on the grounds of religious belief (and perhaps get a nice compo cheque in the process)? There has to be some application of the law to stop such excesses; and to stop religion being used as an excuse for prejudice, bigotry and hatred. Court after court has ruled against the cases above – I would suggest READING the legal decisions before jumping to easy conclusions and joining in the whining ‘It’s not fair’ that seems the habit of a certain flavour of Christian these days. With the exception of the BA worker, I think all the judgements have been fair in light of ALL the evidence and the particular circumstances.
The Bible tells us the means of expressing one’s Christian belief to wider society is by one’s behaviour: turning the other cheek, loving one’s neighbour, rejoicing in persecution, forgiving one’s enemies, carrying other’s burdens, being the servant of all etc… If wearing a bit of tat around the neck or parroting the ‘The Bible says Thou Shalt Not…’ are the only ways and means Christians can live out their faith in the workplace, then God help the churches – and God help Britain!
September 5th, 2012 at 1:15 am
I meant ‘principles’ – not ‘principals! And by the way, I never took the placement at Relate – I settled for working in education welfare instead!
September 5th, 2012 at 11:02 am
@Fr Richard,
“when it comes to allowing Muslim headscarfs while not allowing an employee to wear a trinket around her neck, it hardly constitutes an ‘anti-Christian’ policy!”
AHH! Fr Richard a slight stumble in acknowledging the headscarf as a Muslim expression of faith, but not the trinket (Cross) as a Christian expression of faith.
Should the logic of your argument not dictate that both are costume trinkets.
September 5th, 2012 at 11:16 am
When you get stuck into the minutiae of particular cases, it’s easy to lose sight of the bigger question which is whether there is a climate of opinion in the UK that welcomes religious (particularly Christian) beliefs and practices and tries to find ways of accommodating them in workplaces; or whether the attitude is pretty much, ‘These are the rules set by the majority: like it or lump it.’
In the case of disability, we’ve rightly moved from the latter attitude to the former. In the case of Christianity, we seem to be moving in the other direction.
September 5th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
That just refers to evangelical Christianity really. Other forms of Christianity are embraced by the government which is why there is a communities and faith minister.
September 5th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
@ Goy – yes! You are right, I got muddled… Anyway, BA has now relented on the matter! Chaplain I presume just wants her compo cheque!
September 8th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Air line employees wear uniforms. It is part of the job. Airlines spend millions of dollars designing the uniforms to create a particular effect. Gaudy beads, leg warmers, a cross, a political button, a find from an Indian bazaar, a nun’s habit… all spoil that effect. The cross is particularly bad because its trying to push a point of view not shared by the airline on its customers. It makes customers uncomfortable, particularly non-Christians. It may even be perceived as threatening, as if to say, “only Christians are welcome here” or “I strongly disapprove of drinking alcohol even though I am peddling it under duress.” If the passenger is Muslim, it would say “I approve of the genocide of your people in the crusades.” If the passenger is gay, it says “I would like to kill you if I could get away with it.” If she wants to proselytise, let her do in on her own time, or go work in a Christian supply store. She has no right to push her delusions on the airline’s captive customers. I would see no objection to her wearing religious fetishes under her clothing.
September 11th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
“The argument in Eweida’s case is that if other faiths are permitted to wear religious paraphernalia”
That’s the whole point though – a cross is religious paraphernalia for a Christian, but a turban is a religious necessity for a Sikh. Allowing the former when it’s against company dress code is pandering to whimsy, whereas forbidding the latter is religious discrimination and consequently the dress code must accommodate this possibility.
IMO, Eweida is a religious ambulance chaser and an irritating god-botherer to boot.