It was quite late when I wrote my post yesterday so I took the trouble this morning to read through the Judgement that was handed down by Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson. (Case No: CO/4594/2010 in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division Administrative Court.) The case was between Eunice and Owen Johns as claimants, and Derby City Council as defendant, with the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening on the side of the defendant.
The Johns had been deemed by Derby City Council to be unsuitable as foster parents essentially because of their beliefs. These are summarised in the Facts section of the judgement as: "they believe that sexual relations other than those within marriage between one man and one woman are morally wrong." (n.4) They were appealing the decision at the High Court - the appeal failed.
One of the crucial paragraphs is n.93 which has been fairly summarised by various newspapers as indicating that laws protecting people from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation should take precedence over laws protecting people from discrimination on the grounds of their religious belief. The reasoning behind this is that if the foster child is homosexual, their "sexual health", and therefore more generally their welfare, may not be protected by a foster carer who has christian views concerning homosexuality.
The judges claimed that there is no "hierarchy of rights" but that Standard 7 of the National Minimum Standards for Fostering and the Statutory Guidance meant that the equality provisions for sexual orientation should take precedence. Earlier in the judgement, a social worker's report was quoted which put things clearly:
Mr and Mrs Johns’ views on same sex relationships, which are not in line with the current requirements of the National Standards, and which are not susceptible to change, will need to be considered when panel reaches it’s [sic] conclusion.These Standards are a matter of regulation, issued by the Secretary of State, and not therefore debated in Parliament. So the hierarchy of rights has been established effectively by diktat.
An obvious corollary of the reasoning contanied in n.93 of the judgement would be that a Catholic child's welfare would not be protected by those whose ethical beliefs were strongly opposed to Catholic belief. For quite some time now, local authorities have given up any real commitment to placing Catholic children with Catholic foster parents. Don't expect any regulations in the near future to put that right.
n.11 has an interesting nugget from the process in which the Johns were assessed for their suitability to act as foster parents. One of the "main issues" identified by the Fostering Panel was as follows:
The department needs to be careful not to appear to discriminate against them on religious grounds. The issue has not arisen just because of their religion as there are homophobic people that are non-Christian.Obviously there is some sensitivity around - the Council did not want to be seen to ban the Johns as foster parents because of their religious beliefs, so had to brand them homophobic instead, and to try to drive a wedge between their Christianity and their ethical beliefs - a wedge that the judges happily accepted. further on, it is made clear what kind of Christian you have to be to get approval as a foster carer. In n.22, we read:
Thus the defendant [Derby County Council] says that it has approved foster carers who are very committed Christians who hold to orthodox beliefs – whatever that means – and devout Muslim carers who are similarly committed to their religion, but who in both instances are able to value diversity notwithstanding their strongly held religious beliefs.Well might the judges make the acerbic observation "whatever that means". Clearly the "devout Muslims" and "orthodox Christians" who can be approved for fostering are precisely those who do not feel the need to believe that "sexual relations other than those within marriage between one man and one woman are morally wrong."
In what I referred to yesterday as "the weird and twisted world of modern British equality law", you can be protected against discrimination only if you are a certain type of Christian - one who is prepared to jettison traditional Christian moral teaching.
The Telegraph has today followed up on the story of Eunice and Owen Johns with a leader article Foster parents defeated by the new Inquisition. I thought that the conclusion was particularly good:
Perhaps there is a historical irony here, because we are witnessing a modern, secular Inquisition – a determined effort to force everyone to accept a new set of orthodoxies or face damnation as social heretics if they refuse. Parliament and the courts should protect people like Mr and Mrs Johns, but have thrown them to the wolves. It is a disgrace.
15 comments:
Thanks for this informative post Father. The Court decision makes a mockery of true 'Equality and Human Rights' needs, with current legislation rendering everything to Caesar but nothing to God.
What more can I say that Father has not said? I felt so upset last night I was unable to sleep. So now the people who genuinely care for children are their enemies...
Does anyone else see the irony of ensuring that any proposed foster carers be non-predisposed or even opposed to the traditional Christian understanding that sexual relations only properly occur within the existence of valid marriages? By taking the contrary position, the ministry for foster care is practically ensuring future sexual molestation of the children it places into foster care environments.
By selecting only environments where the propriety of sexual relations is not a criteria for consideration, it makes the case for placing youth needing shelter with potential or even avowed pedophiles (hetero- or homo-sexual) so long as the proposed foster carer hasn't been convicted of some other crime which would otherwise disallow their candidacy! It seems just a matter of time before that case is one the docket! By enforcing the anti-traditional standard, haven't the judges validated the argument for such placements in the future?!
As a social services approved respite carer for children and as adoptive parents, we were asked the same sort of questions. We were able to seperate our own religious beliefs about homosexuality and our actions in supporting individuals in their own lives, and to state that we don't have the same expectations of non-Christians as we do of ourselves as Christians, and moreover that we believe every individual answers for their own actions/attitudes with God, so we would always chose a path of love and acceptance towards a child who was exploring their own sexual identity. It was accepted that we would say, where appropriate, "our church teaches/we believe xyz about homosexual behaviour" but act with love and respect towards a child who came out as gay to us. I suppose when people think of religious faith as essentially being make-believe they will act to "protect" third parties from that having an impact on their own autonomy. I really don't think, per Jack's comment, that anyone seeking to safeguard children would place them knowingly with a paedophile - that is nonsensical. There are high standards for sexual propriety for foster carers (down to what they can wear to bed in their own homes, for example) around safeguarding children from possible harm, but they don't include affirming the Church's teaching on homsexuality.
We are seeing increasingly that man is throwing the owner (God) out of his own household. There is only one place where God does not reside and that's called hell.
Once such schemes are handed to the Courts we will soon see that morality, public order and all semblance of honesty will disappear from our society. Justice stripped of its sanction; conscience viewed as prejudice, virtue and sacrifice seen merely as stupid exertion, on top of that remove the fear of eternal punishment from world and our society will be filled with crime, misdeeds will become duty whenever they are committed without punishment of restrain or prison.
There can be no middle ground in society that quashes God's laws, it will either be God or the gun.
"O Israel, thy perdition is thy doing and not mine, Perditio tua exte, Israel"
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, Have Mercy on us all. You alone be the Victory, Power and the Glory now and for evermore. Amen
Interesting.
A rather naughty thought occurred to me that the Johns might have grounds for appeal on the basis of racial discrimination. More black than white people are Pentecostals (with so-called 'traditional' beliefs) so couldn't they argue that they've been rejected on the grounds of race? It would be rather satisfying to beat the PC brigade at their own game.
This judgement confirms that you do not have the freedom to practice your religion. It says that any non-Christian who taught against homosexuality would be denied the role of foster carer so that this is not religious discrimination. ( See n.75&81) This principle could be applied to any practical implementation of religion so now you can belive but you cannot act on that belief.
So can Sikhs be banned from wearing knives in court because anyone else would be banned from doing so? No. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989108.stm
What is the difference, are Sikhs preferred to Christians? No. The difference is the gay lobby. If a practical aspect of your religion has no bearing on them (such as carrying a knife or wearing a turban instead of a crash helmet) then your religious freedom is guaranteed. If you do anything other than fully support the gay agenda you have no rights what so ever.
Thank you for the informative post and for explaining the consequences of this ruling.
I think I read somewhere that the Johns' wanted to foster children between the ages of 7 - 10. In that case, one wonders why a social worker would think their views on homosexuality matter. I doubt very much that 10-year-olds would want to discuss a subject such as homosexuality. Having said that, the Holy Father has warned us about the tendency to expose children to adult sexuality that now exists in the West.
It seems that the UK is becoming more and more enslaved to the Dictatorship of Relativism with every passing day.
I wonder which Secretary of State imposed this. Presumably not the present one, so it would be worth approaching the current Secretary to reverse the guidelines.
Reluctant Sinner,
You're absolutely correct that children of that age do not want to discuss homosexuality, or sexuality of any sort (they're in the period of latency which throws up a natural reticence about matters sexual). That age-group, however, is precisely the target for sex education in state schools.
I am concerned how the situation could pan out in Catholic schools. If they teach that homosexual activity is wrong, will children have to be removed in case they suffer 'harm'?
radio interview available down
It's not just the judgement which discriminates against Christians, bad enough though it is. It's the hidden aspect which the judges themselves may not have realised: that the judgement stands as an implicit upholding of the sexualisation of children.
It seems that nothing now can escape the stranglehold of sexual connotation; another victory for those with a particular agenda.
The phrase "geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death" somehow springs to mind....
"I am concerned how the situation could pan out in Catholic schools. If they teach that homosexual activity is wrong, will children have to be removed"
I was born in 1983 and went to a Catholic primary school, secondary school and sixth form college in the England.
I have no memory of being told anything negative about homosexuality. I do remember being shown full frontal nudity at primary school as part of sex education and being taught about condoms, which were handed out, at secondary school.
So, unless things have changed in the last eight years, I doubt you have to worry about children being removed from Catholic schools. Your bigger worry is probably how to get children out of Catholic schools and into home schooling.
Post a Comment