European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): Eweida, Chaplin, Ladele, McFarlane – Judgement Published
Today (Tues 15th) at 9am GMT the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will announce its judgement on 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.
Christian Concern made this comment in an email yesterday:
“These are landmark cases and we have waited a long time to get to this point. At stake is not only the future shape of Christian involvement in community life but the protection of important personal freedoms in a diverse society.”
Christian Concern are not the only group to consider this a landmark case, as we’ve already had the BHA and NSS publish their pre-ruling releases today.
In fact, these cases are viewed as so important even the Russian Orthodox Church has offered UK Christians moral support.
There’s one thing we can be assured of when this ruling is published, irrespective of the outcome. And that is there will be a flurry of ill-informed, polemic, alarmist headlines, and articles.
As with all things legal, it is often far more complex and nuanced than it first appears and that is why I won’t be personally attempting any analysis. I know my limitations and will await the experts in such matters.
I’m planning to create a list of links here on this post to opinion pieces and analysis. I know some bloggers have already begun formulating their posts and I will ensure they’re linked to here.
So perhaps bookmark this page and check back periodically over the next few days as the ruling is read, digested, blogged, and then linked to from here.
In the meantime, I’m out and about quite a bit today, so if you come across any good links on this matter, or if you write a piece yourself, let me know in the comments.
THE JUDGMENT HAS NOW BEEN PUBLISHED
CASE OF EWEIDA AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Ewedia (BA worker Christian Cross) wins, other three lose in European Court of Human Rights religious rights judgments hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/page…
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) January 15, 2013
Back in September I said:
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.
Analysis and opinion Links
UK Human Rights Blog - Strasbourg rules against UK on BA crucifix issue
Cranmer - Victory for religious symbols; defeat for the religious conscience
Turtle Bay and beyond - Christian employees in the UK: A second class category
Unconfirmed Tweet:
We understand the two Christians seeking the right not to provide services to gay people are to appeal today’s ECHR decision against them.
— Secularism UK (@NatSecSoc) January 15, 2013
This would be: Lilian Ladele, Gary McFarlane
Here’s a link to the NSS and BHA and whilst I’m at it Ekklesia: Here, here and here. All well chuffed with the result.
New piece on Ekklesia, written by Simon Barrow and comes complete with a quote from me!
Religion Law Blog (Barrister At Law – Neil Addison) - Eweida and Others – First Views
Religion Clause - European Court of Human Rights Vindicates Britain In 3 of 4 Cases Denying Accommodation of Christian Beliefs
Head of Legal - Strasbourg judgment: Eweida and others v UK
First Things - European Court’s Judgment in UK Religious Freedom Cases: A First Read
God and Politics - Letting employees wear a cross won’t destroy your business
Oxford Human Rights Hub - Religious Rights in the Balance: Eweida and Others v UK
Law and Lawyers - Eweida and others v UK ~ a look at what is being said?
Mrs Markleham - Eweida: what it all means
UK Constitutional Law Group – Ronan McCrea: Strasbourg Judgement in Eweida and Others v United Kingdom
A Range of Reasonable Responses – Eweida & Co: the Decision
Law and Religion UK - Chaplin, Eweida, Ladele and McFarlane: the judgment
Danny Webster - Legal right and religious wrongs
Tags: Christianity, Law Moral Ethical, News, Politics, Religion Society
January 15th, 2013 at 2:50 pm
I am so pleased that the court has come to what can only be (in any decent minded person’s view) the correct decision. BA were obviously in the wrong in their treatment of Eweida – as Muslim women can wear headscarves and Sikh men can wear their turbans – so why not a cross if that is important to you.
However, as someone who works in a hospital, I know the wearing of jewellery is often forbidden on many a hospital ward – I don’t really see why crosses should be made an exception – Muslim female doctors regularly wear outfits that don’t have long sleeves (revealing their bare arms despite this being contrary to conservative Muslim dress for women) in accordance with infection control protocols, so why should Chaplin get to wear her cross. Moreover, reading through the employment hearing, the NHS did everything it could to accommodate Chaplin’s wishes – but she was encouraged to continue the case by the Christian Legal Centre (or similar – I don’t have the link to the hearing’s report any more).
As for the other two – Ladele and McFarlane; again, it appears the court has reached the correct decision. Ladele signed a legally binding agreement when she chose to work for Islington Borough Council that she would not discriminate in the provision of the councils services on the grounds of race, disability, gender, sexuality etc. Civil Partnerships are a service provided by the local authority, to refuse to perform them was to refuse a council service to someone on the grounds of their sexuality, therefore Ladele breached her contract of employment. Anyone who sees this as an attack on Christians has missed the point – it is purely a legal argument around discrimination. I know some have argued that she signed her employment contract before civil partnerships – and I have some sympathy with that view, but the fact remains Civil Partnerships are part and parcel of the services of the council (indeed the only Civil Partnership I’ve ever attended was at Islington Town Hall!). Yet I think it odd that a woman for whom the tenets of the Bible are so important to her that she seemed to have no problems marrying divorcees (what was it Jesus said about people divorcing and committing adultery if the grounds for their divorce weren’t unfaithfulness…) – nor did she appear to have a problem with sham marriages (bearing false witness) – again a regular event in many a London registry office. The very fact her Biblical orthodoxy was highly selective suggests she was lacking in real integrity.
As for McFarlane, this is a peculiar case. In 1994 I was interviewed by Relate for a prospective social work placement at their Manchester office. In the end I turned it down because I didn’t think I had enough ‘life’ experience to be a relationship counsellor – even if I was only on a student placement. However even then, 19 years ago, I was asked at interview whether I would have any problems working with same-sex couples. I find it hard to believe McFarlane wasn’t asked the same at interview for a permanent job. There is also the hypocrisy of the man – he didn’t want to counsel same sex couples because of his Biblical understanding of sexuality, yet he had no problems counselling unmarried heterosexual couples! Forgive me if I am missing something here, but surely a Biblical understanding of sex and sexuality is that only married couples can engage in sexual relationships.
It is very rare I punch the air, but I watched the 2pm News 24 bulletin this afternoon while digesting my lunch – and putting off returning to writing a thesis chapter I have to hand in at the end of the month – when I heard the news and I did punch the air. Hopefully now – funds depleted and tail between their legs, Ambulance Chasers for Jesus will have to retire for a while, until they find another means of furthering the cause of cheap righteousness by veiling homophobia in piety…
That said, I have to agree they did good work when it came to the Eweida case.
January 15th, 2013 at 4:13 pm
In hoc signo vinces†
I wear a beenie emblazoned with a skull and crossbones and a dash of red as a hat tip to christianity, the red dash signifying that no quarter will be afforded.
Stop me if you can.
January 15th, 2013 at 7:25 pm
The Alliance Defence Fund (under its new name) have admitted funding the Eweida case. I have updated my article to include this:
http://www.ecalpemos.org/2012/12/are-christian-concern-really-concerned.html
“Alliance Defending Freedom provided funding for the case of Nadia Eweida in the domestic courts. ”
ADF is a US organisation that gets its funding from various big donors including the founder of a company called Blackwater:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7000645.stm
The more you dig the murkier it gets.
ADF is also opposing universal health care provision in the US because of the possibility of the morning after pill being funded by it. They are not anti gun (surprise surprise).
I suspect they might prefer beating ploughshares into swords.
January 15th, 2013 at 9:20 pm
In hoc signo vinces†
@Gordon,
Murky Culture Wars.
I suspect the left might prefer beating ploughshares into shackles.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:26 am
@Gordon… Oh Dear…
I am playing around with an idea at present – looking at what is the recent attraction of the Right for many Christians. Is it perhaps because the Right at present (tho’ the Left have also been guilty of this) tends to see social problems as having simple answers – usually blame politics – in this case the fault of the liberals, secularists and of course that shady organisation ‘the Gaystapo’? Such blame tactics absolves individuals from either culpability or responsibility or cost?
“I can’t be a proper Christian because the state doesn’t let me…”
“Christian witness is weak because it is the state’s fault…”
“People don’t want to come to our church because the state doesn’t let us share our Gospel…”
Of course the reasons/excuses in the above are hypothetical, but seem to echo some of the easy get-out clauses that one reads around the internet and in the Christian media for problems that could be a good deal closer to home – but it is just more palatable (and appeals to one’s vanity – paranoia and vanity are consanguine relations…) to believe others are the cause and the problems lie elsewhere…
My hypothetical meanderings aside (and I must stress, from my own doctoral research, that there are some very active and influential churches out there – tho’ often the ones which preach personal holiness, rather than concentrating on what is wrong with and what the rest of society should be doing!) there is a great irony in the fact these Christians are complaining of censure by employers and/or the state. The real enemy of free speech and freedom of belief for much of Christian European history has of course been Christianity itself (or at least its churches) – and the Reformation made things worse rather than better – at least until the Enlightenment. It is curious that the very institutions that are the fruit of the social and political liberalism derided by some reactionary Christians are the very institutions these same Christians have used to claim persecution and fight their cause…
Religion is a strange beast…
Thanks for the info on the funding sources Gordon… Worrying times indeed.
January 16th, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Part of it is that evangelicals crave personal significance, whether that is in the destiny of God, or the world, or in society. That’s why they have tended to form larger churches by transfer growth. There are probably the same number of evangelicals in Edinburgh as there was 25 years ago, but they are more significant because they are gathered in fewer churches.
The easy way to get influence is by using the political and legal process.
However, the big change over the past thirty years has been the decline of evangelicalism in the mainstream confessing churches and the growth of independent and charismatic churches. These churches generally don’t do theology well, or at all, and without that they will tend to flap around when trying to handle difficult issues.
Its interesting that my old theology lecturer, now Professor, Bruce L McCormack of Princeton has been saying much the same thing recently.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:21 pm
In hoc signo vinces†
Regardless of these HR cases, subverting and suppressing christian consciousness from the public space will create a sociopolitical power vacuum. Any gloaters or subscribers to the sabotage of the UK christian moral brake would be advised to be cautious in their glee as they know not what will eventually capture that vacated sociopolitical territory.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Thtas assuming you believe that Christian morality has always been stationary. It hasn’t really. For example, prior to the reformation in Scotland the church did not see marriage as necessary for couples who were cohabiting – it was mainly for the wealthy land owning classes. Then there are the evangelicals who used to believe that God made people homosexual as a punishment for idiolatry in other areas of their lives.
Nothing is static. It just changes so slowly that we don’t notice.
January 17th, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Yes, religion is always in a dialogue with the socio-political – often being informed by it, rather than informing it. One thing I hear again and again – particularly in some of my research interviews on faith-based social welfare – is Christians telling me that it is Christianity we have to thank for the social reforms of the late 18th and the 19th century which gave rise to our welfare state. It does not seem to occur to them that if there was something intrinsic about political and social Christianity that gave rise to these reforms, then why was reform needed in the first place? Britain had been Christian for over a thousand years at the time of the reforms and had been Protestant for over three hundred years – lest they saw RC Christianity as deficient in social welfare (which of course it wasn’t – the mendicant communities et el did much social good that shamed their Protestant successors). Moreover, in reality – for anyone who has actually read any social history from these periods – it was Non-Conformist Christians (and non-Trinitarians Unitarians) working with Humanists that often pushed socially reforming legislation through an often indifferent (tho’ largely church going) parliament.
I was at an annual meeting for the American Association for the Sociology of Religion a few years ago (http://www.sociologyofreligion.com/annual-meeting/previous-annual-meeting-programs/) where Peter Beyer spoke on the topic of religion changing over time. I was a bit miffed really because that is one of the conclusions of my own doctoral thesis! My argument being (in relation to faith based organisations) that we live in a bureaucratic, highly differentiated society, where the state and its agencies have taken on many of the functions that at one time would have been the property of the local community and the family. Therefore it is no wonder that religion too has become highly bureaucratised and differentiated, with its functions devolved or disseminated to various agencies and organisations.
As Gordon demonstrates above, there is a great deal of ignorance of (or wilful distancing from) the past within some Christian fraternities and from some Christian leaders whom you would think would know better. There is the belief that the past was ‘better’ or ‘more moral’ than the present, but there is very little evidence for this (it also flies against the advice of Scripture (Ecclesiastes 7:10)). Certainly Britain is a far more socially moral society than it is has ever been – the problem is that morality is now being seen as almost wholly to do with what people do with their genitals. And as I note above, religious freedom and freedom of speech’s main opponents over the past two millennia has been political Christianity (how Catholic Voices has the cheek to post on religious freedom is beyond me, given the brutal suppression of other religious beliefs or free speech in many Catholic societies over the years and until quite recently! Some people have no shame or ownership of their faith’s past! – see: http://www.catholicvoices.org.uk/monitor-blog/2012/09/uk-religious-freedom-falls-increasingly-frosty-ground).
January 17th, 2013 at 9:20 pm
@Goy
‘subverting and suppressing Christian consciousness from the public space will create a sociopolitical power vacuum.’
How so? And just let’s remember these few cases are not necessarily representative of Christian thinking. Two of them are wholly focused on rather limited issues around homosexuality – or excusing homophobia, depending how you look at it – the case of McFarlane is highly suspect, given the man’s willingness to give sex therapy to unmarried couples – where was his ‘Christian consciousness’ then? And while I have some sympathy with Ladele in that she was required to do something which she doesn’t agree with in her job – well, I have to fight for housing and benefits for immigrants as part of my job on occasion – despite the fact personally I don’t think people coming to the UK should be able to access either housing or benefits until they have lived here for five years and have a track record of paying into the system. Similarly in social work I have to work with people whose problems are of the own making and I would very much like to leave them to rot in hell of their own making. But it is my job (not unlike a lawyer) to advocate for their rights, empower them to make better choices and to own their decisions. My personal beliefs don’t come into it. Ladele was denied a right, many others in the work place don’t have (i.e. to refuse to do something we don’t personally agree with or is against our conscience); just because she (rather selectively) plays the God-card and lost is hardly a ‘subverting and suppressing’ of ‘Christian consciousness’.
If the focus of these ‘professional martyrs’ was a little more even handed then they would be credible (we’ve yet to see a case of a banker or lawyer or doctor etc. refusing to do a deal or take a case or treat a patient because they were stricken with by their ‘Christian Conscience’). No, the focus has been disproportionately on willy-woofters – and as such demonstrates just how morally bankrupt is the ‘Christian Conscience’ in our present society. I am sure there are many issues in business and government – far removed from sexuality and trinkets around the neck – where a voicing of Christian Conscience would have been welcome. But in reality, the only time we’ve really see a militancy on the part of political Christianity has been concerned with sexuality and jewellery… Which I think is pretty sad, when you come to think about it, don’t you?
January 17th, 2013 at 10:43 pm
@Peter D,
Calm yourself.
January 18th, 2013 at 7:10 am
Peter, you are right. If Christians spent more time speaking out and acting on other issues they might be taken more seriously on these ones.
January 18th, 2013 at 10:35 am
@Gordon,
Maybe these cases have been of some value at least in this conversation in exposing the (non-christian) mercenary “rot in hell” conscience that Peter D alludes to in his comment, in comparison to a predictive christian conscience of forgiveness and redemption in the (social) professions and society generally.
January 18th, 2013 at 10:51 am
@Goy
Grasping at straws and misquoting and telling half truths… You should write for Anglican Mainstream – you’re a natural!
P.D.