Here’s a view expressed by Baroness Kingsmill.
It occurs in an article in the St Louis Post-Dispatch which is about the US handling of “Gays in the Military”. She was asked how the UK had dealt with this issue.
17 CommentsKingsmill offered three insightful reasons.
“First and perhaps most importantly is that we are, by temperamental and historical inclination, a largely liberal-minded society,” she said. “As a small, crowded island we have to be accepting of each other. Wave after wave of immigrants first from the Commonwealth and more recently Europe, have been absorbed mostly without serious concerns. We have acquired the habit of tolerance. Sexual orientation and behaviour is just another aspect of diversity we have learned to embrace.”
Second, the weakening in the influence of the Church and the religious right has also played a role. The Established Church of England is one of the last bastions of anti-gay prejudice still outside the law. It is the only institution that legally can discriminate against the employment of gay people. The church recently fought to retain the right to refuse a religious service to gay couples wishing to marry, even in circumstances in which the church and the priest may wish to perform the ceremony. The Bishops, who have reserved seats in Parliament, face rapidly declining church attendance in the United Kingdom. Kingsmill suggested that it is only a matter of time until this last barrier to full equality falls.
Third, the impact of legislation on social change should not be underestimated. Many major shifts in social attitudes have been preceded by progressive acts of Parliament, sometimes in advance of public opinion. Foremost among these must be the abolition of the death penalty in 1969, when it was likely that a majority of the country still supported capital punishment. Today, polls show there is only a very small minority that would support its reintroduction.
Two Church of England diocesan bishops and two retired Church of England bishops have written to the Telegraph Councils should not discriminate against Christian carers. The full text of the letter is reproduced below the fold.
Jonathan Wynne-Jones had earlier reported the letter in the Telegraph news columns, Christians’ freedom to express beliefs is at risk, warn bishops.
This case has been running for a while. Rachel Harden reported on it for the Church Times in February 2008, see ‘Unsuitable’ foster-parents to appeal.
Update
It may be helpful, as suggested in the Comments below, to provide a link to the earlier McFarlane case in which Lord Carey intervened. The full text of the main judgement was linked from here.
The full text of Lord Carey’s own witness statement was published by Ruth Gledhill on her blog, but is no longer available; however comment on it from the Church Times is still available here. Update Now available in .doc format here.
32 CommentsAccording to a report from Catholic News Service by Simon Caldwell English Catholic adoption agency appeals Charity Commission’s decision:
The last remaining Catholic adoption agency in England has filed an appeal against a decision by the Charity Commission for England and Wales forbidding it to turn away same-sex couples as potential adopters and foster parents.
Catholic Care lodged the appeal with the charity tribunal against a ruling by the commission rejecting its application to change its constitution so it could comply with church teaching prohibiting gay adoption and civil laws stopping it from discriminating against same-sex couples.
The agency, which serves the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough and Hallam in northern England, had sought to continue its policy of assessing married heterosexuals and single people as potential adopters, which means it will not deal with gay couples.
But on July 21, the Charity Commission turned down its application on the grounds that it was discriminatory toward homosexuals and in breach of European and British equality and human rights laws.
Catholic Care lodged an appeal against the decision Sept. 28, arguing that commissioners ignored the opinion of a High Court judge, Sir Michael Briggs, who in March ruled in favor of the agency when it first appealed against the commission’s decision.
Benjamin James of London-based Bircham Dyson Bell Solicitors, representing Catholic Care, told Catholic News Service Oct. 4 that the “commission is wrong in its decision.”
He said, “We have lodged an appeal with the charity tribunal and the charity tribunal will request that the Charity Commission responds within 28 days.
“Once the commission has responded, there will be a directions hearing deciding how the case will be managed going forward,” he said.
“The actual appeal is whether the Charity Commission correctly interpreted Sir Michael’s (Briggs) judgment,” he added…
Previous TA reports on this subject are here and also here.
19 CommentsBack in June, I wrote an article for the Church Times, Equality Law will affect church appointments. This is a more detailed look at the same subject, with particular reference to the draft legislation on women bishops that is about to be referred to the dioceses of the Church of England.
That draft measure, GS 1708A as amended by synod in July, contains the following clause:
7 Equality Act exceptions
(1) Section 50(1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) of the Equality Act 2010 (2010 c. 15) (“the Equality Act”) do not apply so far as they relate to sex or religion or belief, in relation to —
(a) any arrangements contained in a scheme made by the bishop of a diocese under section 2,
(b) any request made by a parochial church council under section 3(1) or (3),
(c) any arrangements set out in a notice sent to the secretary of a parochial church council by the bishop of a diocese under section 3(8),
(d) any action taken in exercising functions relating to the appointment of a priest in order to take account of a request made by a parochial church council under section 3(3), and
(e) any provision in a Code of Practice made under section 5.
(2) Subsection (1) is without prejudice to Schedule 9 to the Equality Act
Section 50 of the Equality Act 2010 deals with the particular topic of Public offices: appointments, etc. Under the Equality Act, a Public office is defined as:
a) an office or post, appointment to which is made by a member of the executive;
(b) an office or post, appointment to which is made on the recommendation of, or subject to the approval of, a member of the executive;
(c) an office or post, appointment to which is made on the recommendation of, or subject to the approval of, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the National Assembly for Wales or the Scottish Parliament.
Clearly, this definition encompasses all Crown appointments, which within the Church of England includes among many others all appointments to bishoprics.
Section 50 goes on to specify the various ways in which discrimination is prohibited in relation to such appointments. For example:
(a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding to whom to offer the appointment;
(b) as to the terms on which A offers B the appointment;
(c) by not offering B the appointment.
It is self-evident that several provisions in the draft legislation are, and are intended to be, discriminatory against women appointees. See, for example, the references to a “male bishop” in the text. Unless a clause along the lines of Clause 7 is included in the draft measure, there will be a clear conflict with Clause 50 of the Act. It is worth noting, perhaps, that this requirement is entirely separate from, and in no way impinges on, the various exemptions for religious organisations which are enumerated in Schedule 9 of the Act.
It is also worth noting that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Tony Baldry MP, and the former MP, Robert Key, both issued warnings to synod during the debate that even with, or perhaps because of, Clause 7, the draft measure might face opposition in Parliament. See my earlier report women bishops and equality legislation.
7 CommentsUpdated again Tuesday afternoon
Adam Wagner has written at the UK Human Rights Blog that the Catholic Care gay adoption rejection boosts equality protection.
The Charity Commission has rejected a bid by a Catholic organisation to amend its charitable objects in order to restrict its adoption services to heterosexuals. The case highlights the significant protections which have been put in place by recent equality law, and the policing role which the Charity Commission is required to play from a human rights perspective…
Martin Pendergast has written at Cif belief that the Catholic gay adoption ruling is a victory for vulnerable children
Neither the pope nor the bishop of Leeds are likely to go as far as Cardinal Sandoval, the Mexican who this week accused civic authorities of bribing the courts. But they will not be at all happy about the charity commission’s rejection of Leeds-based Catholic Care’s application to restrict adoption to heterosexual couples. Lesbian and gay Catholics and many other members of the church will be delighted that this attempt to institutionalise discrimination has been defeated.
Altering charitable objects to avoid compliance with legislation was deeply offensive to many Catholics, and not just lesbian and gay people. Catholic values dictate that a childcare service should do its utmost to find loving homes for the children it exists to serve. If a majority of other Catholic childcare agencies in England and Wales found it possible to comply with the law, why not Leeds? Other agencies lost neither financial nor moral support from their Catholic populations. There was never any evidence that Catholic Care would be any different…
Virginia Ironside has written in the Independent The Catholic Church should stay out of the gay adoption debate.
Sunday update
Paul Vallely has written in the Independent on Sunday Talking over the heads of children.
The Roman Catholic Church and the equality lobby are both wrong: the rights of would-be adopters do not come first.
Monday update
Neil Addison Catholic Care An attack on the idea of Charity
…Also the Commission has dealt a blow to the idea of Charity itself which is the free giving by individuals and organisations to help others. If the Catholic Church (or any other organisation or individual) wants to spend its own money in any way it pleases to help others why should an unelected quango, or indeed an elected Government interfere ? If individuals want to give money to adoption services that serve only heterosexuals, or adoption services for homosexuals, or disabled people or black or white people what right does the government have to interfere with that choice?
The provision of adoption services is a good thing in itself and a charitable purpose and for that reason alone should surely have been permitted even if the Commission felt that the services were provided on too limited a basis. The Commission seems to have regarded Charitable status as a favour granted by itself rather than as a good thing to be encouraged. This decision by the Charity Commission has, quite rightly been criticised as an attack on religious freedom but I would go further it is an attack on freedom itself. If individuals, churches and organisations do not even have the right to choose how to give away their own money then freedom itself ceases to exist.
Tuesday Update
Third Sector reports that Catholic Care considers appeal against Charity Commission over gay adoption
9 CommentsSee earlier reports on this case, here, and also here.
Civil Society reports on the latest decision:
The Charity Commission has again ruled that Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) may not change its objects in order to exclude homosexual couples from accessing its adoption services.
Despite being told in March by the High Court to reconsider, the Commission has stood by its original decision, arguing that there are not “particularly convincing and weighty reasons justifying the proposed discrimination”.
Speaking about the judgement, the Commission’s chief executive Andrew Hind, said: “In certain circumstances, it is not against the law for charities to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
“However, because the prohibition on such discrimination is a fundamental principle of human rights law, such discrimination can only be permitted in the most compelling circumstances.
“We have concluded that in this case the reasons Catholic Care have set out do not justify their wish to discriminate.”
Read the news reports:
Guardian Riazat Butt Catholic adoption agency loses bid to bar gay parents from service
Telegraph Martin Beckford Last Catholic adoption agency faces closure after Charity Commission ruling
BBC Catholic charity’s appeal over gay adoption fails
Press Association Bid to block gays adopting fails
Associated Press UK: Adoption charity can’t ban gay couples
Third Sector Charity Commission refuses to change Catholic Care gay adoption decision
Press releases from the principals:
Charity Commission
Catholic charity ‘may not restrict its adoption service’, says Charity Commission
Summary of Decision
Full Document (PDF)
Catholic Care
PRESS STATEMENT : 18th August 2010
The Equality Act 2010 amends the Civil Partnership Act 2004 so as to remove provisions in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 that prevent all ‘religious premises’ being approved for the registration of civil partnerships.
See here for the wording of the amendment, and also see this earlier article for some explanations of the wording.
At the time these amendments were passed, the Church of England which had earlier issued this statement, then also said, as I reported in the Church Times :
A spokesman for the Archbishops’ Council confirmed on Wednesday that the amendment took account of discussions held with the Government. The Church of England’s concern, he said, was to ensure that the regulations provided for an opt-in or opt-out at denominational level. The C of E (and other denominations) wanted to be able to nominate a national body to declare a position on this issue, before individual applications could be made. This was what the Quakers themselves had done (Comment, 12 March).
The government is now holding consultations with “interested parties” in preparation for implementing such provisions. As a recent Government document [PDF] said:
An amendment made to the Equality Act 2010 makes it possible to remove the express prohibition on civil partnerships taking place in religious premises. We want to talk to those with a key interest in this issue about what the next stage should be for civil partnerships, including how some religious organisations can allow same-sex couples the opportunity to register their relationship in a religious setting if they wish to do so.
And on 20 July, the following written answer was given in the House of Commons:
Civil partnership and civil marriage registrations are entirely secular in nature and prohibited from taking place on religious premises or containing any religious language, or religious music.
An amendment made during the passage of the Equality Act 2010 removed the express prohibition on civil partnership registrations taking place on religious premises. In response to this amendment, the Government committed to talking to those with a key interest in this issue about what the next stage should be for civil partnerships. This will include consideration of whether civil partnerships should be allowed to include religious readings, music and symbols. This commitment was made clear in the Government’s published document ‘Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality’, published on 16 June 2010.
We will begin this exercise before the summer parliamentary recess.
There are reports of these consultations, which show that some groups are now looking for rather more from the new Coalition government than they were from the Labour one:
The Independent yesterday carried a report that the Liberal Democrat conference next month would consider adopting a new policy, see Lib Dems to vote on full marriage rights for gay couples.
41 CommentsIn England, James Kirkup reported in the Telegraph that ‘Gay couples will get equal right to marry’.
Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader, said that the Government will allow same-sex couples to have “civil marriage” with same legal status as marriage between a man and a woman.
His comments follow moves by a Lib Dem minister to allow homosexual couples to have religious elements to their civil partnership ceremonies.
Under current rules, same-sex couples can contract a civil partnership, which is recognised in law but not given the same status as marriage for a heterosexual couple.
Mr Hughes predicted that before the next general election, the law will be changed to give an equal right to full marriage…
In Scotland, Rebecca McQuillan in the Glasgow Herald reported on a Fresh call for gay marriages to be legalised
It might be marriage in all but name – but now campaigners want to end that final inequality in gay partnerships.
Senior churchmen and a cross-party coalition of MSPs are demanding a change in the law in Scotland to give same-sex couples full marriage rights.
Polling evidence suggests a majority of Scots would back the move…
And there was also a leader article, Same-sex couples should be afforded equality of treatment.
The following day the same reporter wrote of Roman Catholic reaction, Bishop on same-sex marriage: not now, not ever…
23 CommentsThe Catholic Church will never celebrate same-sex unions – “not now, not in the future, not ever” – even if the law changes to allow religious celebrants to conduct gay marriages, the Bishop of Paisley, Philip Tartaglia, has told the Prime Minister…
The Irish Civil Partnership Bill was signed into law by the President of the Republic yesterday. The bill was passed without a vote in the Dail (the lower house of the Irish parliament) and was supported in the Seanad (Senate) with only 4 dissenting votes, out of 52.
Irish Times Signing into law of new civil Bill welcomed
Some earlier reports:
According to RTE in this report Civil Partnership Bill passes the Seanad:
The Seanad rejected, without a vote, an amendment that would have allowed Registrars opt-out of presiding over civil partnership ceremonies.
The so-called ‘conscientious object’ amendment had been tabled by Independent Senator Rónán Mullen, however the matter was not put to a vote because not enough Senators called for one.
Senators spent three hours discussing the amendment, in total there were 77 amendments down for discussion.
Irish Times Bill’s success shows ‘society’s maturity’ and ‘Historic advance’ for equality as Civil Partnership Bill passed.
17 CommentsA recent UK Supreme Court case concerned the deportation of gay asylum seekers. As the UKSC blog explained:
Under the Convention on the Status of Refugees, members of particular social groups (which can include groups defined by their sexual orientation) are entitled to asylum where they can establish they would face a well-founded fear of persecution if they returned to their home states. The issue concerned the extent to which those who seek asylum will, if returned to their countries of origin, be able to conceal, or at least be discrete about, characteristics of themselves which give rise to the fear of persecution. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision that it was permissible to return a person if they would conceal their sexuality in order to avoid being persecuted, provided their situation could be regarded as “reasonably tolerable”. To compel gay people to pretend their sexuality does not exist is to deny him his fundamental right to be who he is. Simple discriminatory treatment does not give rise to protection under the Convention, but the Convention does not envisage applicants being returned to their home country “on condition” they take steps to avoid offending their persecutors.
The full judgement is available here.
Aidan O’Neill has written Some Reflections on Religion, Sexuality and the Possible Transatlantic Implications of the HJ (Iran) v. Home Secretary [2010] UKSC 31
In HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 the UK Supreme Court held that gay people cannot properly be required or expected under international asylum/refugees to conceal their sexuality/pass as straight to avoid State sponsored but usually religiously inspired persecution in their home countries. The central point about the UKSC decision is that the court rejects the cogency of any distinction between acting on one’s sexual orientation and being of a particular sexual orientation. It was argued by the Home Office that it could properly send back avowedly gay men to Iran and Cameroon respectively on the basis that, if they were to be discreet (not – openly – act on their sexual orientation) they would not invite persecution…
He goes on to review some American legal comment on the decision, and concludes:
21 Comments…what seems to concern the Professor and what he seems to be driving at, is a suggestion or feeling that the specifically religious motivation for discriminatory attitudes and practices resulting in State persecution, should be worthy of some respect and deference from the courts. But his objection to Lord Hope’s use of the word “misguided” itself seems to be misguided, in that it is clear from the passage quoted that Lord Hope was not there seeking to make any theological point, or to suggesting that the anti-gay views expressed were not in fact true expressions of the particular religious beliefs described. Rather the tenor of the whole court’s decision in HJ (Iran) is that those religious beliefs when acted upon are morally wrong because inimical to the proper respect for individual human dignity that is incumbent upon all States and societies.
The (anti-relativist) realization that there are absolute moral values (captured in the concept of “human rights”) which are not culturally relative or religiously specific and which States and societies and religions must protect and promote in order to have legitimacy is a post WW11/post-Nuremberg phenomenon common to the political/legal cultures of the civilised world. An expression by the court that the actions by another State or significant religious or cultural or political non-State institutions within that state contravene fundamental human rights is very much the province and duty of the judge. There is no usurpation of power in the judges so doing in this particular case.
The following article appeared in the Church Times on 11 June 2010.
Equality Law will affect church appointments
by Simon Sarmiento
THE Equality Act 2010 will apply to all Crown appointments of clergy when it comes into effect later this year, probably in October.
Until now, anti-discrimination law has not covered clerical office-holders in the Church of England. But the definition of “public office” in the new Act will bring within its scope all posts to which appointment is made on the recommendation of a minister of the Crown.
Another category of posts defined in the Act is that of “personal office”-holders. But a Church House spokesman said last month that “That definition probably applies only to stipendiary curates. It does not apply to incumbents or priests-in-charge who are not ‘appointed to discharge a function personally under the direction of another person’.”
One consequence of this change is that legislation to allow women bishops in the C of E will need specific provisions to widen the existing exemptions. As the revision committee’s report explains: “essentially, the Equality Act provides . . . that a person can be excluded from consideration for appointment to a public office altogether on the grounds of sex,” but would not “allow a woman to be appointed a diocesan bishop but on the basis that . . . she would refrain from carrying out certain functions herself (because of her sex)”.
This is not the case under the current Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which contains an express exemption in wider terms for ministers of religion. Modifications made to this exemption in 2005 included the repeal of an earlier specific provision inserted in the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993.
Clause 7 of the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure contains an exemption from relevant clauses in the Equality Act that deal with the “terms on which an appointment is made”. The Government Equalities Office told Church House staff that “We have no doubt that Parliament will consider very carefully, and with good will, any measure that the Church of England as a whole ultimately feels is necessary to achieve this objective.”
The 1975 Act will be repealed at the same time as the new 2010 Act comes into effect, but the current exemptions in the former are carried forward in Schedule 9 of the new Act.
A Church House spokesman said on Friday, however: “In so far as anything in the 1993 Measure conflicts with Part 5 of the Equality Act it is rendered lawful by Schedule 9 paragraph 2 of the Act. But not all the arrangements contained in the 1993 Measure do conflict with Part 5 of the Act because Part 5 does not cover all the clergy.”
When asked whether it agreed that many clergy were not covered by the Equality Act, a government spokesman said on Monday: “The policy is to provide protection to those in employment and employment-related positions (meaning, roughly, where someone has sufficient direction and control over another such that discriminating against them could seriously impede their ability to obtain/engage in gainful work, thereby compromising their ability to provide for themselves), implementing our EU obligations and domestic policy. It is for the tribunals to decide whether any definition is satisfied on the facts of each case.”
5 CommentsThe UKSC blog, which is focused on the new UK Supreme Court, has published an article by Aidan O’Neill QC titled Religion and the Judiciary.
He discusses several recent situations where the personal religious convictions or cultural background of judges have given rise to comment, and in particular the recent intervention by Lord Carey in McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd.
He concludes:
2 CommentsThe paradox is that the obvious tension between the views expressed by Lord Carey and their unequivocal rejection by Lord Justice Laws arises precisely because of the expansion of anti-discrimination law explicitly to outlaw discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. What the religiously motivated find difficult to understand or accept is that the freedom from discrimination on grounds of religion or belief which has been afforded them by the law does not extend to giving the religious a general right to discriminate (on otherwise unlawful grounds such as sex, age, race, disability, or sexual orientation) on the basis of religion or belief. There will undoubtedly be more litigation – if not further legislation – on this whole vexed issue. The UK tradition of being blind to our Justices’ religion will come to be further strained as a result.
Updated 3 June
See earlier reports here.
The full judgment is available in English here (PDF also available there), or as a Word file, downloadable here.
Neil Addison notes that a relevant bit of history is contained in paragraph 16, see here.
The next hearing in the case will be at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on 30 June.
The Italian Government has submitted a brief (PDF), which is so far only available in French.
Several other parties have filed Amicus Curiae briefs in this case. Here are links to some of them.
The European Centre for Law and Justice has filed a brief (PDF).
See their press release: The ECLJ Admitted as Amicus Curiae in the Italian Crucifix Case Before the European Court of Human Rights.
The American-based Alliance Defense Fund has submitted a brief (PDF) on behalf of 32 members of the European Parliament.
See their press release: Court grants ADF request to allow 32 members of European Parliament to defend Italy in cross case.
Another American-based group, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has also filed a brief (PDF) prepared by a team of 37 law professors.
See their press release: 37 Law Professors Urge European Court to Reject Ruling Banning Cross from Italian Classrooms.
Also, the European Humanist Federation has filed this brief (PDF). More from the EHF available here. Update This organisation has had its application to intervene rejected.
Update
There are also reports that ten European states have joined Italy in petitioning the European Court of Human Rights to overturn its decision. They are reported to be:
I have not so far linked to the detailed Church Times report on the latest judgment, written by Shiranikha Herbert and published on 7 May. Here it is: McFarlane’s appeal is refused.
In the same issue, there was a news report headlined Bishops criticise ‘secular’ judgment.
And Andrew Brown devoted most of the Press column to this: The Lord and the Law Lord.
Even earlier Carl Gardner had written on his own blog, on 30 April Short shrift for Lord Carey.
And the day before, Heresy Corner had published Laying down the Laws.
4 CommentsNancy Doyle asks on the Charities_Parliament blog Was Lord Carey right to question ruling made against Christian who refused to treat gay couple?
Tom Chivers at the Telegraph argues that Religious beliefs should not trump the laws of the land.
George Pitcher does not agree.
From Eastbourne comes Christians warned of increasing marginalisation in the UK, a report on a conference where Bishop Wallace Benn, Oak Hill principal Mike Ovey, and others attacked Lord Justice Laws:
“Lord Laws also believes something, he fails to see that he has a faith too … secularism fails to understand that it is a religion.”
And there is an interview with Bishop Benn over here: Wallace Benn on the marginalisation of Christians in the UK.
But best of all, in today’s Guardian Stephen Bates tells us how Anglican the judge at the centre of this controversy really is. In the Diary column he writes:
24 Comments…So just who is this wicked, secularist judge who doesn’t understand the former archbish’s concept of Christianity? Intriguingly, it turns out that Laws could scarcely be more Anglican if he tried…
Last week, before the McFarlane judgment was issued, the Church Times carried an article by Mark Hill entitled Judges should not be hand-picked.
One might be forgiven for thinking that Lord Carey of Clifton has generated more column-inches since retiring as Archbishop of Canterbury than he did when in office. His latest foray into the nation’s media is more than usually regrettable, as it strikes at the heart of the independence of the judiciary.
In a witness statement placed before the Court of Appeal on Thursday of last week, Lord Carey sought to lend his support to an application by Gary McFarlane that his case be heard by a specially constituted Court of Appeal comprising five Lords Justice who had “a proven sensitivity to religious issues”.
By what authority he sought to intervene is far from clear. He gave written evidence that, during his time as 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury, he was “responsible for the spiritual welfare of 70 million Anglicans in the worldwide communion” — a curious assertion in the light of the principle of autonomy underscored by the Lambeth Quadrilateral (See Press) His compulsion to intervene was couched as follows: “I am bound by my commitments as former Archbishop of Canterbury to defend the spiritual requirements of the Anglican Communion and of all sincere Christians. I am also bound to consider the rights of religious minorities.”
He seems to forget that, after he vacated the see of Canterbury, his successor inherited these responsibilities. As Monty Python would put it, he is an ex-Primate…
The same issue had comment on this topic by Andrew Brown in the Press column (scroll down past the pope stuff).
5 CommentsLORD CAREY’s impulse to self-dramatisation as a member of a persecuted Church is not as sinister as Cardinal Castrillón’s. Sorry, that was disrespectful: let me quote his proper dignities, as set out in the preamble to his witness statement: “I was the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury and I was responsible for the spiritual welfare of 70 million Anglicans in the worldwide communion. I was created Lord Carey of Clifton upon retirement. . . Currently, I am Chancellor of the University of Gloucestershire, and I am the recipient of 12 Honorary Degrees. I am the author of 14 books.” Not even Baron Widmerpool could boast as much, and he had the advantage of an Eton education…
Updated twice
James Meikle Guardian Ex-archbishop attacks judges over gay counselling ruling
Independent
Jerome Taylor Church’s call for religious judges is rejected by Court of Appeal and
Robert Verkaik Lord Carey’s proposal is a step back to medieval days and
Steve Clifford If Christians are marginalised, it is not just the fault of secular society
Steve Doughty Daily Mail Judge rules Christians have NO special rights as he throws out case of sex therapist who refused to work with gay couples
Telegraph
John Bingham Gary McFarlane: judge’s assault on ‘irrational’ religious freedom claims in sex therapist case and
Gary McFarlane: the counsellor whose case led to warnings of ‘civil unrest’ and
Michael Nazir-Ali The legal threat to our spiritual tradition
Andrew Brown Cif belief Carey slapped down by senior judge
Neil Addison What is Religious Discrimination ?
Heresy Corner Laying down the Laws
Philip Henson Cif belief Carey’s intervention backfires
And here is an older article by him , written before the judgment, which I failed to link to previously.
The church cannot claim ‘superior right’
Christian Institute Christian counsellor appeal turned down
Letter to The Times (Saturday edition) Christian courts
22 CommentsIn his judgment, Lord Justice Laws said this…
20. …But they do not confront deeper concerns expressed in Lord Carey’s statement and in Mr Diamond’s argument. These are to be found for example in the references to an alleged want of understanding or sensitivity on the part of the courts in relation to the beliefs espoused by Lord Carey and others: “a lack of sensitivity to religious belief” (paragraph 10 of the witness statement).
21. These concerns are formulated at such a level of generality that it is hard to know precisely what Lord Carey has in mind. Broadly, however, the argument must be that the courts ought to be more sympathetic to the substance of the Christian beliefs referred to than appears to be the case, and should be readier than they are to uphold and defend them. The beliefs in question are not specified by Lord Carey. Since his statement is given in support of the applicant’s case, it must be a fair assumption that they include what is expressly stated at paragraph 21 of Mr Diamond’s skeleton argument of 23 December 2009:
“To the religious adherent ‘Religion’ is the route to salvation:-
- The fear of hell is central to the appellant’s religious belief; and individuals ought to be informed of the consequences of hell;
…- The proposition of the appellant’s religious belief is that sin will have eternal consequences. Those who do not repent will go to hell when they die…”
22. In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law’s protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law’s protection of that belief’s substance or content. The common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian’s right (and every other person’s right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society.
23. The first of these conditions is largely uncontentious. I should say a little more, however, about the second. The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. So it is with core provisions of the criminal law: the prohibition of violence and dishonesty. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy. And the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
24. The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
25. So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief’s content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime.
You can learn something more about Paul Diamond by reading this interview with him in last week’s Church Times.
7 CommentsUpdated twice Thursday afternoon
Telegraph Judge dismisses counsellor’s bid to appeal sacking over refusal to help homosexuals
BBC Relate therapist Gary McFarlane loses appeal bid
Read the full text of the judgment here.
More press coverage:
Press Association via the Guardian Christian counsellor loses court fight over sacking
and another PA version, this time via the Independent Sacked Christian counsellor Gary McFarlane’s appeal bid dismissed
The Times Frances Gibb Special legal protection of Christianity ‘divisive, capricious and arbitrary’ headline now changed to: Judge rejects ‘irrational’ idea that Christianity deserves special protection from law
Ruth Gledhill We have never said anti-gay Christians are bigots, says Judge
Reactions from campaigning groups:
Christian Concern for our Nation
11 CommentsThe Equality Bill received the Royal Assent on 8 April.
The full text of the Equality Act 2010 can be found here:
The Act will start to come into force from October 2010. More information on that is here.
The text of the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday 6 April, when all the House of Lords amendments were approved without any voting taking place, can be found here:
During the debate, the Solicitor-General said:
3 CommentsThe House might recall that it was mentioned on Report and Third Reading that the European Commission had delivered a reasoned opinion in November 2009 on two aspects of our implementation of this directive. We have now responded to that opinion, although the correspondence is kept confidential. However, as my noble Friend Baroness Royall explained on 25 January in the debate in Committee in the other place, we did not inform the European Commission that the Bill will amend regulation 7(3) of the 2003 regulations, which paragraph 2 of schedule 9 replaces, to bring the position into line with the directive. We did not say that because the existing legislation already complies with the directive. I ask the House to agree to these amendments.