Christians take 'beliefs' fight to European Court of Human Rights

Published by BBC News on 4 September 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438

Four British Christians who claim they lost their jobs as a result of discrimination against their beliefs are taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights. They include an airline worker stopped from wearing a cross and a registrar who did not want to marry gay couples.

All four lost separate employment tribunals relating to their beliefs. Secular critics have said a ruling in favour of the group could "seriously undermine" UK equality law. A ruling is not expected from the European court for several weeks.

The cases involve:

1. Nadia Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, who was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross,
2. Devon-based nurse Shirley Chaplin, who was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons,
3. Gary McFarlane, a Bristol relationship counsellor, who was sacked by Relate after saying on a training course he might have had a conscientious objection to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples,
4. Registrar Lilian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London.

Each individual had made a separate application to the court, but the cases are being heard together. Miss Eweida's lawyer, James Dingemans, said her employer had permitted other religious symbols to be worn.

He said: "She was working alongside colleagues who were able to wear religious symbols and attire including the Sikh turban, the Sikh bracelet, the Muslim hijab, and the Jewish skull cap. "It was indisputable that wearing the cross visibly did not have any detrimental effect on Miss Eweida's ability to do her job." But a lawyer for the government, James Eadie, said employees' rights have to be limited in order to protect the rights of others.

He said: "These four linked cases at their core raise questions about the rights, and the limits to the rights, of employees to force their employers to alter employment conditions, so as to accommodate the employees' religious practices.

"My submission will be that the court's jurisprudence is clear and consistent, it is to this effect the convention protects individuals' rights to manifest their religion outside their professional sphere.

"However, that does not mean that in the context of his or her employment an individual can insist on being able to manifest their beliefs in any way they choose. Other rights, other interests are in play and are to be respected."

'Right to religion'

Court documents explained that Miss Eweida and Mrs Chaplin believed the UK law has "failed adequately to protect their right to manifest their religion" which is contrary to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article provides a right to freedom of religion, including to worship, teaching, practice and observe elements of their faith. They also claim that previous tribunal rulings have breached Article 14 of the convention, which outlaws discrimination based on religion.

Miss Ladele also believed her right to an "effective remedy" was infringed, and Mr McFarlane claimed his right to a fair trial and right to a private life in the UK were breached. Earlier this year, the UK's equality watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the UK tribunals had come to the correct conclusion in the cases of Miss Ladele and Mr McFarlane. But it conceded that the courts "may not have given sufficient weight" to Article 9.

Andrew Marsh, campaign director at religious group Christian Concern, whose sister organisation Christian Legal Centre is supporting Mrs Chaplin and Mr McFarlane, told the BBC the four could have had their beliefs respected by their employers without adversely affecting the people they serve.

"The crucial question in these cases is this: could these four individuals have been reasonably accommodated and their Christian faith respected, without detriment or damage to the rights of others - and the answer to that question is clearly yes.

"Each of them could have been reasonably accommodated without there ever being any danger of risk, significant risk to others or indeed of anyone who is entitled to a service being denied that service." However, the National Secular Society - which campaigns against "religious privilege" - said a European court ruling in favour of the quartet would undermine UK equality law.

Society director, Keith Porteous Wood, said the group was fighting the action: "We think that if it goes the wrong way it will cause a hierarchy of right, with religion at the top, and it's going to be bad news for employers and for gay people."

Related report: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/05/christian-discrimination-lord-carey-human-rights_n_1857460.html

Discrimination against Christians is rife in the workplace, with religious groups warning that the cases of four Christians in the European Court of Human Rights are "the tip of the iceberg". The former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey criticised the prime minister for his hypocrisy, in failing to support Christians facing "discrimination" but extolling his own faith...

In a submission to the court, Lord Carey said: "The secular human rights agenda has gone too far and the Convention is losing legitimacy in many Contracting states. "Many noble words such as ‘human rights’ are seen as little more than a political agenda. "The human rights agenda is now seen as an anti-moral agenda; the Court must restore its prestige by recognition of traditional religious values. "Christians have values of morality, honesty and generosity that the State should promote, not discourage.

In his submission, Lord Carey argued Christians were being increasingly “vilified” and “driven underground” by the tendency of UK courts to apply "equality law to discriminate against Christians.” As the court adjourned on Wednesday, Lord Carey accused the government of double-standards, saying: "David Cameron has turned the value of ‘tolerance’ on its head. Only two months ago he championed the right of Christians to wear crosses.

“Yet at the same time he was making that statement, his lawyers were drafting a legal submission to Strasbourg which opposes the rights of all these Christians. "We have to question, then, whether Cameron’s initial words of support mean anything at all. “Sadly, the Government has passed up its opportunity to support the right of Christians to express their faith and have a reasonable accommodation in the law for freedom of conscience. “It is now down to the European Court. In these cases, Christians are not seeking special rights but merely trying to overturn unfair verdicts which create a hierarchy of rights in which Christians are at the bottom of the pile.”

Andrea Minichiello Williams, barrister and founder of the Christian Legal Centre also criticised the government's approach. “The prime minister has been asked, repeatedly, to intervene in these cases and back the four Christians who have served the public through their varied professions. He has failed dismally.

“Many believe it is unfair that hard-working public servants and employees are being discriminated against simply because of their faith. It is very clear at the moment that there is either a major problem in the way that the Equality Act was drafted. It is time for this to be redressed.

“The working of the British courts has led to deep injustice. If we are successful in Strasbourg I hope that the Equality Act and other diversity legislation will be overhauled, so that Christians are free to work and act in accordance with their beliefs and conscience.”

Andrew Marsh, campaigns director for Christian Concern, which is providing legal support for Chaplin and McFarlane, told The Huffington Post UK that the four cases were a small example of the volume they dealt with. He said he felt they had been treated with "aggression and hostility" by their employers. "I think the media has drawn attention to the fact that much of this is directed specifically against Christians, for whatever reason, and other faiths are more accommodated if they have specific requests at work.

"What lies at the heart of this is that no-one has been harmed by the choices these four wanted to make, no-one had had a service denied to them. This is an issue which really resonates with people on the ground, and is much wider than just a Christian issue. "Detractors have wanted to paint Gary and Shirley as 'rights-obsessed' and belligerent, but they are extremely gentle and accommodating people."