Updated Thursday evening
There was a television current affairs programme on Channel 4 last week, in the Dispatches series, entitled In God’s Name. Here’s the Channel 4 blurb about the programme.
If you didn’t see it and want to do so, you can find it on this website.
The film-maker, David Modell wrote a major article for the Sunday Telegraph before the programme aired, which was headlined Christian fundamentalists fighting spiritual battle in Parliament. This Sunday, there were several letters to the editor.
The article and the programme devote considerable space to the activities of the public policy director of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship.
No less a person than Joel Edwards wrote an open letter to Channel 4 about it.
Stephen Green who was also featured, and whom Joel Edwards describes as an extremist, has responded to the programme here. (h/t Louise Ashworth)
Craig Nelson commented about the programme here and also here.
Updates Thursday evening
Simon Barrow has written a detailed analysis of the issues raised by the TV programme for Wardman Wire which you can read at A fundamental problem? Thinking Aloud by Simon Barrow.
In that article he also links to an earlier interview with Andrea Minichiello Williams done by Rachel Harden in the Church Times which I inexplicably forgot to include here earlier.
66 CommentsEkklesia reports on this in Christian charity found to have discriminated on grounds of religion.
An Employment Tribunal in Abergele has today unanimously found in favour of a former employee of a Christian charity who was claiming constructive dismissal and discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.
The Tribunal heard that Prospects, a Christian charity which receives public money for its work with people with learning disabilities, and which had previously employed a number of non-Christian staff and volunteers – including a number who were transferred to them under TUPE Regulations – acted illegally when in 2004 it began recruiting only practising Christians for almost all posts, and told existing non-Christian staff that they were no longer eligible for promotion.
Mr James Boddy, Barrister from 11 King’s Bench Walk Chambers, representing the claimant Mr Mark Sheridan, declared: “This is an important decision because it is the first time an employment tribunal has been called on to decide the extent to which an organisation with a religious ethos is allowed to discriminate on grounds of religion or belief…”
This story was reported in some detail last December, by Ruth Gledhill in The Times see Christian ‘forced to discrimate’ against non-Christian staff and on her blog at Christian claims discrimination ‘on grounds of religion’.
See also the BHA press release, Tribunal victory for employee in landmark religious discrimination case.
And Simon Barrow’s comments are here.
24 CommentsSimon Barrow, co-director of Ekklesia, said: “This judgement ought to make religious charities sit up and think – not just about their legal responsibilities and the morality of non-discrimination, but about the impact of their behaviour on their image with the public at large.”
He continued: “Leaders and entrepreneurs in many faith organisations seem reluctant to embrace a comprehensive equalities agenda, or to recognise their culpability in issues of discrimination. Yet they are often the first to seek exemptions from legislation accepted by others and to complain that they are being ‘attacked’ when criticisms are raised.”
“The Christian message of love and justice is undermined by poor employment and equalities practices in the Christian organisations. This is an opportunity for the churches to get their house in order.”
Last week, the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered a lecture at the London School of Economics. The title was Religious faith and human rights.
You can read the full text of the lecture here.
Natalie Hanman has written at Comment is free about this lecture. Her article is titled Cross purposes. In the article she asks which comes first: gender equality before the law, or religious liberty?
This article also explains about the current UK legislation imposing a “public sector equality duty” and the proposals to extend this duty into more areas.
15 CommentsMy report published in last week’s Church Times is now available to the public: John Reaney awarded £47,000.
John Reaney awarded £47,000
by Simon Sarmiento
An Employment Tribunal in Cardiff published its final judgment last Friday, awarding John Reaney more than £47,000, but made no other recommendations. Last July, Mr Reaney won a case of unlawful discrimination against the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Revd Anthony Priddis (News, 20 July).
The tribunal noted that: “the Respondents have accepted the need to provide equal-opportunity training to all of its individuals who are engaged in a recruitment exercise. Furthermore if a genuine occupational requirement does apply in a particular case then thought will be given by the Respondents to make that clear in any advertisement . . . we are satisfied that these matters have been taken seriously by the Respondents.”
The compensation includes £25,000 for future loss of wages, £8000 for future pension loss, £7000 damages for psychiatric injury, and £6000 for injury to feelings.
Alison Downie, Mr Reaney’s solicitor, said: “Given his comments [in the Temple lecture last week], the Archbishop of Canterbury should ensure that the Church of England and its bishops act in full and complete accordance with UK and European law now — otherwise we are likely to see more discrimination cases against the Church in the future.”Mr Reaney said: “I remain sad that the Church fought my case even after being found to have acted unlawfully. I would much prefer to be working as a Christian within the Church to promote and develop youth work, but was stopped from doing so because I am gay.”
In a press release, the diocese of Hereford said: “We are now aware that, when making such an appointment, we must make it clear if it is a genuine occupational requirement that the post-holder should believe in and uphold the Christian belief and ideal of marriage, and that sexual relationships are confined to marriage. This is the crux of the matter, not sexual orientation.”
A spokesperson for the pressure group Stonewall responded: “The crux of the matter is that discriminating against gay people in employment is unlawful. Let’s hope this is covered in the equal-opportunities training diocesan staff will be attending.”
The LGCM paid advertising supplement to last week’s Church Times also carried an article on the subject, written earlier. PDF file here,see top of page 3 or read html copy here.
15 CommentsUpdated Friday evening see Bindmans press release below
Here is the outcome of the Hereford tribunal case as reported by icWales:
Gay Christian wins £47k pay-out
A gay Christian who won a discrimination claim against the Church of England was awarded more than £47,000 in compensation today, the organisation backing him said.
John Reaney, a 42-year-old from North Wales, took the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance to an employment tribunal after his appointment to the role of youth worker was blocked on the grounds of his sexuality by the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis.
Stonewall, the gay equality organisation which funded the claim, said the Diocese of Hereford was today ordered to pay Mr Reaney £47,345.
A spokesman for Stonewall said this included £33,000 for loss of future earnings and £7,000 damages specifically awarded for “psychiatric injury”.
Mr Reaney said: “I’m delighted that this case is finally over. Lesbian and gay Christians working within the Church of England are entitled to be treated with humanity. I’m very grateful to Stonewall for supporting this case throughout.”
Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said: “We’re delighted that the tribunal has sent such a robust signal, both to the bishop and other employers.
“The substantial level of compensation sends out a very clear message. Not even a bishop is above this law.”
According to Stonewall the Bishop’s costs are estimated to be a further £50,000.
Stonewall added that the tribunal had also said it expects the Bishop to undergo equal opportunities training…
Here is the full text of the press release from the Diocese of Hereford:
Diocese of Hereford & the Employment Tribunals Service
February 08th 2008
The Employment Tribunal has issued its final judgment in the case of the diocese of Hereford and Mr. John Reaney. “We are glad we can draw a line under this unhappy situation. It has been a difficult time for all of us involved in the tribunal,” said Anni Holden, spokeswoman for the Diocese of Hereford. “It has been a long drawn out process and we are pleased that it is finally complete.”
The ‘Remedy Hearing’ of the tribunal took place in December following its decision in July 2007. The Employment Tribunal has decided that the Diocese of Hereford is to pay £47,345 to Mr John Reaney. The legal costs of the case to the Diocese are being met by an anonymous donation.
“We are now aware that when making such an appointment we must make it clear if it is a genuine occupational requirement that the post-holder should believe in and uphold the Christian belief and ideal of marriage, and that sexual relationships are confined to marriage”, added Anni Holden. “This is the crux of the matter, not sexual orientation.”
According to this report from Hereford-based 24dash.com:
The total compensation ordered by the tribunal included £25,000 for future loss of wages, £8,000 for future pension loss, £7,000 damages for psychiatric injury, £6,000 for injury to feelings, £1,320 for counselling and £25 for costs incurred seeking work.
Other press coverage:
BBC Gay man wins £47k church payout
North Wales Daily Post Gay Christian wins £47,000 pay-out and later Church must pay out to gay Christian
The Sun Gay Christian’s £47k compo and later Rev’s £47k gay worker snub
Hereford Times Gay man wins Church payout
Daily Mail Gay Christian rejected for post by Bishop awarded almost £50,000 in damages
Daily Telegraph Bishop fined in gay discrimination case
The Times Bishop ordered to have equality training over gay discrimination
Guardian £47,000 for gay youth worker bishop rejected
Ekklesia Bishop faces equal opportunities training after discrimination award
There is a full press release from Bindmans titled Tribunal awards substantial compensation in landmark gay discrimination case against Church of England:
John Reaney wins over £50K compensation and interest
John Reaney v Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance
Cardiff Employment TribunalThe Employment Tribunal has just awarded John Reaney over £50,000 (including interest) as compensation for unlawful discrimination against him by the Diocese and the Bishop of Hereford.
Alison Downie, of Bindman & Partners, lawyer for John Reaney said today:
“The Employment Tribunal has just ordered the Diocese of Hereford to pay substantial damages, over £50,000 including interest, to my client as compensation for the unlawful gay discrimination against him by the Bishop and Diocese of Hereford…
Update added 15 Feb: the Stonewall press release is here: Tribunal orders Bishop of Hereford to pay £47,000 to gay youth worker.
22 CommentsPress release on behalf of Dr. Elaine Storkey surrounding her unfair dismissal from Wycliffe Hall
Issued by Mortimers Solicitors
7 CommentsFollowing the pre-hearing review in the Reading Employment Tribunal on Monday 7th January Dr. Storkey is very pleased that Wycliffe Hall has acknowledged that she had been dismissed unfairly and has accepted that appropriate compensation is payable.
This was not merely a procedural matter. Dr Storkey brought a claim against the Hall alleging both that procedures were not followed and there were no grounds for dismissal.
The Hall, as Dr Storkey’s employer had alleged that Dr Storkey contributed to her dismissal in that there had been a breakdown of trust as a result of Dr Storkey’s behaviour. This was strongly contested by Dr. Storkey whose contention was that any breakdown of trust and confidence was due to the conduct of the Principal, the failure by the Hall to consider the concerns repeatedly presented by a large number of staff members, and the further failure to properly address her written grievance against the Principal.
Dr. Storkey had raised a formal grievance to the Hall Council, concerning the treatment to which she had been subjected. But that procedure which had been commenced in February 2007 was not concluded, before being prematurely terminated by her dismissal.
At the hearing the Hall formally withdrew the allegations it had previously made against Dr. Storkey and agreed a settlement for this part of her claim which will equate to her salary and benefits until her previously anticipated date of retirement together with a 50% uplift in recognition of its unlawful failure to follow statutory procedures.
The Tribunal, given Dr. Storkey’s intent on pursuing her claim for religious discrimination, has listed the matter for a preliminary issue hearing later in the year. At that hearing the Tribunal will consider whether the religion or belief relied upon by Dr. Storkey which she defines (for this purpose) as ‘open evangelicalism and/or membership of Fulcrum’ constitutes a religion or belief for the purposes of the Employment Equality (Religion of Belief) Regulations 2003 as distinct from conservative evangelicalism.
The Tribunal, expressing some disquiet as to its qualification to determine matters of theology has given the parties leave to adduce independent expert evidence and to call one witness, which they anticipated in the case of Dr. Storkey, given her expertise, would be her.
It is Dr Storkey’s hope that the resolution of these issues will leave Wycliffe Hall in a stronger position to pursue its calling of training people for Christian ministry in a context of truth and good governance.
The case continues.
There is as yet no trace of this press release on the website page that one might logically expect it, but it is to be found here:
10 CommentsWycliffe Hall press statement regarding Elaine Storkey’s dismissal
January 10th, 20081. At a Pre-Hearing Review in relation to Dr Elaine Storkey’s claims of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination, the College accepted that she had been unfairly dismissed as the College had not, prior to dismissal, gone through the statutory procedures. We are hopeful that a full and amicable settlement can be reached.
2. Nevertheless, we strongly refute any allegation that Elaine’s dismissal from Wycliffe was in any way connected with her religious beliefs. At Wycliffe Hall, our key priority is to equip men and women for modern ministry and this happens in an environment that encourages wide discussion and debate, reflective of the broad range of thinking within the Church as a whole.
3. We look forward to resolving the whole matter as swiftly as possible so that we can concentrate purely on our priorities of maintaining high standards of training, theological teaching and academic excellence at Wycliffe Hall, in equipping men and women fully for modern Christian ministry.
Helen Mitchell
College Administrator
Wycliffe Hall, 54 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6PW
Direct line: +44(0)1865 274201College office: +44(0)1865 274200
College fax: +44(0)1865 274215
www.wycliffe.ox.ac.uk
Updated Friday morning
According to the Daily Telegraph in Church ‘accepts end of blasphemy law’:
The Church of England has signalled that it is prepared to see the abolition of blasphemy offences after the Government announced a review of the ancient law…
… The principle of blasphemy laws dates back to ancient times, but the present common law offence of “blasphemous libel” is based on 19th century court rulings.
In 1838, it was limited to cover only the “tenets and beliefs of the Church of England”.
Yesterday, the Church signalled it could accept abolition. “We are open to the possibility of a review,” said a Church spokesman, urging a “cautious” approach.
It is understood that Church leaders could be willing to back the abolition of blasphemy offences if new laws banning the incitement of religious hatred can provide significant protection for Anglicanism…
The Guardian report on this Ministerial compromise averts backbench revolt over repeal of blasphemy offence says:
…A Church of England spokesman said last night it became clear last year during the debates on the crime of incitement to racial and religious hatred that the church was open to the idea of the blasphemy law being abolished. “But first there has to be adequate time to assess the impact of the new legislation,” he added…
And the Guardian has a leader: An offensive law.
The BBC had Blasphemy law ‘may be abolished’.
Update Friday morning
Rachel Harden has a report in the Church Times Blasphemy report might be repealed.
8 CommentsUpdated again Thursday morning
There are reports in both the Daily Telegraph and The Times about this.
Jonathan Petre writing in the Daily Telegraph under the headline Leading theologian sues bishop over ‘bullying’ reports:
One of the Church of England’s best-known theologians is suing the Bishop of Liverpool following a row at an Oxford theological college.
Dr Elaine Storkey, a regular contributor to Radio 4’s Thought for the Day slot, told an employment tribunal in Reading yesterday she had been bullied while a senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall.
She accepted around £20,000 from the trustees of the college after they acknowledged that she had been unfairly dismissed from the post. But the 64-year-old is still seeking a ruling of religious discrimination against the president of the 130-year-old college, Bishop James Jones, over the row…
And Fran Yeoman in The Times adds some further information:
…Bruce Carr, representing the trustees of Wycliffe Hall, acknowledged this version of events, adding: “The respondent accepts that the dismissal of the claimant was unfair.”
Charles Crow, representing Dr Storkey, then turned to the issue of alleged religious discrimination. “Within Christian evangelism there are two strands; conservative evangelism and an open and more liberal evangelism,” he said. “As an open and clear proponent of one of those strands, [Dr Storkey] has been discriminated against.”
Mr Carr rejected that, saying Dr Storkey could not allege discrimination against people of the same faith as her. “She is not saying, ‘I’m being discriminated against because of my Christianity’,” he said. “She is saying, ‘I have a particular type of Christian evangelism.’ To paraphrase, she is the wrong type of evangelical.”
The tribunal has scheduled a further hearing for 10 June, but:
urged both parties to reach an agreement before the full hearing, pointing out the difficulties in attempting to resolve a theological dispute in an employment tribunal.
Update
The Liverpool Echo has picked up this story but has a misleading headline, Bishop of Liverpool sued by BBC (the headline has now changed to: Bishop of Liverpool James Jones caught up in bullying row)
…The case has now been adjourned until June, at which point the three members of an employment tribunal will have to decide whether the Doctor’s evangelical stance constitutes a religion as compared with other evangelists.
Their decision could have far-reaching implications within religious circles.
Dr Storkey has named Bishop James as chairman of Wycliffe Hall’s trustees in her legal action along with and Andrew Dalton, the Hall’s treasurer…
…Today Charles Crow, representing Dr Storkey, said of the outstanding claim. He said: “Within Christian evangelism there are two determinate strands; conservative evangelism and an open and more liberal evangelism.
“Those are open and definable strands and as an open and clear proponent of one of those strands, Dr Storkey has been discriminated against.”
Yesterday (Mon) Bruce Carr, representing the trustees, accepted her dismissal was unfair but claimed Dr Storkey could not allege discrimination against people of the same faith as her…
And Education Guardian has Unfairly sacked Oxford college theologian sues bishop.
Tuesday evening
Ruth Gledhill has blogged about this, see Elaine Storkey: ‘Don’t shoot the heretics.’ Ruth has talked to Elaine, part of what she says is this:
…She told me this afternoon: ‘For me, this never started out as a battle between conservatives and open evangelicals. For me, this was trying to draw attention to the fact that we were unhappy with the style of management at Wycliffe Hall. But as time evolved, it started to feel more theological.
‘I am alarmed at the way big walls between people and groups have started to emerge in the way they did not before. People had nuances and differences, but we all worked well together. From the Fulcrum point of view [Elaine is chairman of Fulcrum], it is not what we are wanting. We want to work with everybody rather than create a new camp.
‘I am alarmed at the belligerence of the conservative camp, where they are seemingly going out of their way to make life as difficult as possible for the Archbishop of Canterbury. I cannot imagine what the reasons are. They are being destructive rather than constructive, finding something to argue about rather than working together to find a fruitful outcome…
Wednesday morning
Oxford Mail Ex-don settles dismissal claim
Independent Fire and brimstone! College principal says we’re all going to hell
Guardian College denies theological vendetta
Thursday morning
Ekklesia has a report, Tearfund president accused of double standards over religious discrimination.
Cambridge Evening News has Presenter in a battle of faith.
49 CommentsMy news report on this, published in the Church Times last week, is now available here.
The statement that the diocese issued to me while I was preparing that article was previously published here and is below the fold.
The full context for that statement was unfortunately not included in the Church Times article as published. I reproduce below a longer version of my report.
Priddis now regrets but remains impenitent
THE Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Revd Anthony Priddis, has said he now regrets “a lot of what has happened” in the case of unlawful discrimination against John Reaney. He lost the case (News, 20 July), but he has not changed his opinion, he said last Friday.
Bishop Priddis said in a witness statement: “I am very sorry for all the hurt and pain my decision not to appoint [him] has caused”, but he went on: “my opinion was, and still is, that at the time of the interview [he] did not have sufficient stability of life to give the assurances the Tribunal have found I was entitled to require of him.”
An employment tribunal at Cardiff last week adjourned before deciding on financial compensation and other remedies, which the parties had failed to agree privately in the four months since judgment was given in July. During the hearing, the chairman repeatedly urged the parties to seek agreement. No decision will now be issued until at least mid-January. A Stonewall spokesman said afterwards: “It is deeply regrettable that John has been forced to come back to endure further unnecessary cross-examination, which has been deeply distressing”.
Counsel for the diocese interrogated Mr Reaney as to why he did not apply for two similar posts recently advertised by Worcester and Guildford dioceses. Mr Reaney said that he lacked the confidence to seek any other church position after the way the bishop had treated him.
When asked whether or not the diocese would in future insert a reference to the employment regulations in its advertising, the bishop was hesitant: “We wouldn’t want to be in a position where we discourage people of homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation to apply for posts”. Later a diocesan spokesperson explained: “Given the judgement of the tribunal the only “safe” option to avoid future discrimination claims is for the Diocese to express a Genuine Occupational Requirement… This we do not wish to do… We are therefore seeking advice on how we can maintain the teachings of the Church without transgressing the law.”
The bishop took strong exception to adverse press reports, saying: “The media attention has, in my opinion, made matters worse for myself, the claimant and the Church of England as a whole.” He insisted the coverage had been “driven by Stonewall” particularly the Bigot of the Year Award. He said: “when they make derogatory statements about me personally, then that’s clearly hurtful to me”. Responding to this, Stonewall said: “The only person responsible for the media coverage is the bishop himself, who was found to have acted unlawfully”.
43 CommentsHere is what the Diocese of Hereford told me on Tuesday 11 December when I asked them to clarify the comments made by the Bishop of Hereford at the employment tribunal hearing in Cardiff on Friday 7 December:
“Given the judgement of the tribunal the only “safe” option to avoid future discrimination claims is for the Diocese to express a Genuine Occupational Requirement and claim exemption from the Sexual Orientation Regulation 2003.
This we do not wish to do as we wish to encourage people of any sexual orientation to play a full part in the life of the Church and to apply for all Diocesan posts.
However, we also require those in leadership positions within the Diocese, and the DYO is such a position, to uphold, support and promote the doctrine of the Church of England. We are therefore seeking advice on how we can maintain the teachings of the Church without transgressing the law.”
The Church Times has a story on this, Priddis ‘sorry for hurt’, but it is only available to subscribers at present.
59 CommentsThe employment tribunal hearing last week in the case of John Reaney and the Diocese of Hereford adjourned without the Remedies being settled. The tribunal chairman said it would be at least mid-January before judgment would be given. That’s yet another month’s delay in a case which started over a year ago.
Some press reports:
BBC Gay row bishop ‘sorry for pain’
Wales News Bishop hurt by ‘derogatory’ comments, and in the Western Mail next day Bishop regrets gay case distress.
And in today’s Guardian, Stephen Bates has a piece in the People column.
20 CommentsThe Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council and the Department for Christian Responsibility and Citizenship of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales have issued a joint statement.
This statement has been issued with a press release titled Churches comment on Government’s incitement to hatred plans which starts:
The Church of England and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales have commented on the Government’s proposed amendment to the Public Order Act 1986 to create a new offence of incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation….
Scroll down from the press release to read the full text of the Memorandum to the Public Bill Committee on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
48 CommentsA Christian magistrate who was told he could not opt out of homosexual adoption cases has lost his appeal.
Having lost an initial hearing at an employment tribunal in Sheffield earlier in 2007, Mr McClintock took his case against the Department for Constitutional Affairs to appeal in London.
However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Department for Constitutional Affairs had not acted unlawfully and that Mr McClintock had not suffered discrimination on grounds of his religious beliefs.
Mr McClintock intends to appeal this decision.
You can read the full judgement of the appeal tribunal as a PDF file. Here is the official summary:
The appellant was a Justice of the Peace. He sat on the Family Panel which, inter alia, places children for adoption. He objected to the possibility that he might be required to place a child with a same sex couple. The reason he gave was that he considered that there was insufficient evidence that this was in the child’s best interests and he felt that children should not be treated like guinea pigs in the name of politically correct legislation.
He asked to be relieved from hearing cases which might raise these issues. Representatives of the respondent refused to allow this and he resigned from the Family Panel. He complained that this was both direct and indirect discrimination and harassment, contrary to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
The Tribunal found that on the facts there was no unlawful conduct of any kind. He had not indicated that his objections were rooted in any religious or philosophical belief. There was in fact no direct or indirect discrimination for religious or philosophical reasons, nor any evidence of harassment. Even if there were a criterion adversely impacting on the appellant, the respondent was justified in requiring him to carry out the full duties of the office in accordance with his judicial oath.
The EAT rejected the appeal. The case was dismissed largely on the facts, but in addition the Tribunal was fully entitled to find that any indirect discrimination was justified.
Press coverage of the decision:
BBC Gay couple adoption appeal lost
Daily Telegraph Jonathan Petre Magistrate loses gay adoption appeal
Religious Intelligence Nick McKenzie Christian Magistrate to appeal after losing tribunal case
The Christian Institute and the LCF-sponsored CCFON are both unhappy, see here and here.
9 CommentsA report in the Times Higher Education Supplement tells about the advice given to its members by Council of Church Colleges and Universities (CCCU).
See Academia checks on faith in The Times:
Advice from the Council of Church Colleges and Universities tells universities to mention their Christian ethos in employment contracts so that staff who “openly flout” their ideals can be said to be in breach of contract.
It is thought that the rules are most likely to affect senior staff, chaplains and teachers of theology.
“If an employee acts in a way that is detrimental to the employer, by openly flouting the ethos . . . it may be possible to conclude that there has been a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence,” the advice adds…
And also Universities told how to use Christianity to sack staff on Ekklesia:
40 Comments…But Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said that the advice was deeply disturbing.
“This report obliquely suggests ways of ensuring that some positions are not held by those whose lifestyle is at odds with some Christian doctrine, presumably in terms of sexual orientation, attitudes to abortion and maybe even to marriage”, the Times reports…
Yesterday the UK Government announced in Parliament that it would table an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to extend the offence of incitement to racial hatred to cover hatred against persons on the basis of their sexuality.
The Government have a strong record of promoting equality and of tackling discrimination and bigotry in all its guises. We have strengthened the sentencing framework, so that sentences can be increased where race, religion, disability or sexual orientation are aggravating factors. We have also introduced legislation to outlaw the stirring up of religious hatred, as my hon. Friend reminded the House. We have received many representations on the matter, and I am pleased to say that we will propose a further step to strengthen the protection afforded to homosexual people. It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the last 10 years that we are all now appalled by hatred and invective directed against gay people, and it is now time for the law to recognise the feeling of the public. In Committee, we will table an amendment to extend the offence of incitement to racial hatred to cover hatred against persons on the basis of their sexuality. Homophobic abuse, lyrics and literature are every bit as abhorrent to those concerned as material inciting hatred based on race or religion, and have no place in our communities.
Media reporting of this today gives some prominence to objections from religious groups:
The Times Inciting hatred against gays could lead to 7 years in prison and yesterday before the announcement, Christians fear jail for criticising gays
Daily Telegraph Seven years jail for gay hate preachers
Guardian Straw moves to ban incitement against gays
Daily Mail New law means anti-gay comments could lead to seven years in jail
Daily Express JAIL THREAT TO VICARS UNDER GAY HATE LAW
BBC Plans to outlaw inciting gay hate
According to the Daily Mail (no other paper mentioned this):
Last night a CofE spokesman said: “We will be scrutinising any legislation to ensure that it safeguards the safety and rights of minorities without jeopardising wider concerns for freedom of expression, including the expression of religious faith.”
Update
The Christian Institute is already on the case, see Gospel freedom threatened by homosexual hate crime.
More Updates
The text of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act is here.
The Evangelical Alliance had this to say about it.
62 CommentsLast week’s Church Times contained a comment article written by me and titled Discrimination: a lost opportunity.
For previous Church Times coverage of the Archbishops’ Council response, see here. For the original response to the Discrimination Law Review, go here.
4 CommentsThe Hereford Times has reported: Diocese will not appeal.
42 CommentsTHE Diocese of Hereford will not appeal against a tribunal’s ruling that the bishop, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, discriminated against a gay job applicant.
An appeal is not being planned due to the high cost and length of time it would be expected to take, the diocese confirmed this week.
Diocesan spokesperson Anni Holden said: “We have taken legal advice and decided against appealing.
“Appeals can take several years and cost a lot of money. We are looking to the remedy hearing in December.”
During the remedy hearing it will be decided how much compensation youth worker John Reaney will receive…
I reported earlier about the Church of England’s response to the government review of current legislation.
Today, the Church Times has both a news article and a leader column about the response.
News: C of E queries Government’s new ideas for equality laws (this also includes a report of the Northern Ireland judicial review of SORs).
Leader: My right’s better.
On the Northern Ireland judicial review, Jonathan Petre had this in the Daily Telegraph: Judge squashes part of UK gay rights laws.
On the government consultation, the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales have also filed a response. It can be found here.
6 CommentsThe Courts Service of Northern Ireland has now published the full text of yesterday’s judgement by Mr Justice Weatherup.
The document can be read as an html page here.
0 Comments