Fr Ed Tomlinson has a good summary of the recent cases heard in the European Court of Human Rights: Don't put out the bunting. Essentially one case went well - it was ruled that British Airways discriminated against employee Nadia Eweida for prohibiting her from wearing a cross at work, but the other three went badly. Elfin safety arguments were upheld against nurse Shirley Chaplain who was banned from wearing a cross at work (though the court did not actually know what the arguments were). The case against Gary McFarlane who objects to offering sex therapy to homosexuals was upheld as was the case against registrar, Lillian Ladele, who refused to perform same sex ceremonies having ensured others would cover in her absence.
Deacon Nick at Protect the Pope gives his summary: Christians allowed to wear discreet crosses, but not allowed to follow consciences – European Court of Human Rights
Christian Legal Centre is taking a glass half full approach and has some helpful comments: European Court announces judgement on Christian freedom cases.
There is also a good article at the French magazine, La Vie: Cour Européenne des Droits de l'homme : pas de discrimination antichrétienne
And Archbishop Mamberti, the Holy See's Secretary for Relations with States has commented on these and other cases: If relativism is taken as a norm. As he says:
There is a real risk that moral relativism, which imposes itself as a new social norm, will come to undermine the foundations of individual freedom of conscience and religion. The Church seeks to defend individual freedoms of conscience and religion in all circumstances, even in the face of the “dictatorship of relativism”.
12 comments:
Father: on a Point of Order. Isn't the ECHR totally separate from the EU? I thinks its parent body is the Council of Europe.
ECHR, not EU, surely?
Forgive me a little pedantry, Father, but the ECtHR is not an institution of the EU; it was established through a different treaty process to that of the EU.
Thank you all for your correction. Have changed the title now.
I have blogged about the judgment at http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/eweida-and-others-first-views.html
What is interesting is that where the European Court has agreed with the UK Courts it has often done so for other reasons and on balance even where the cases have gone against the Christians involved the legal position for religious rights is slightly better that it was previously
Neil Addison, Barrister
I was once asked to give a talk to two allegedly homosexual men on their relationship. I pointed out that someone against homosexuality is perhaps not the best person for the task, and if I did counsel them I would not in any way talk about their sexual lives. I counselled them and it was quite unhelpful since every time they wanted to satisfy themselves with talking about sex I steered them off the subject. I cannot think of how anyone who disagrees can possibly give help to gays. But ECHR seems to be run by nut cases. The reason the other cases failed is that the Cross was to obvious and so discriminated against some other unmentioned party. So if you see a seikh in a turban or a moslem women with her veil let her know she is discriminating against you. If you can`t give the reason just ECHH. then report the instance to the nearest police station.
The one I am sorry for is Ms Ladele - see the blistering minority judgment which refers to Islington's blistering political correctness and the backbiting of her colleagues.
Contrast the case of Ms Mba who worked for Merton Council in a post which, of necessity, involved 24/7/365 cover and refused to work on Sunday. She had the nerve to suggest two colleagues who could take her share of the Sunday shifts and whose Sunday activities she considered less important than hers.
In the words of Thomas Hood:
Alas for the rarity
Of Christian charity
Under the sun!
She lost her case and lost again on appeal and a good thing too.
Thinking about this, what was a practicing Christian doing as a registrar conducting (sacramentally invalid) civil marriages and what was a practicing Christian doing as a sex therapist in the first place?
Had we stood firmly upon the rock of Christs doctrines a generation ago and boycotted and loudly, regularly and forcefully condemned such "professions" then would we be in this mess now?
Were I the nurse I would be tempted to dye a small cross onto my uniform which would get round the "H&S" aspect.
May we have more orthodox leaders like Bishops Davies and Egan, and fast.
We are allowed to wear our Christian Crosses but we are punished and victimised for being coherent in our Christian God fearing belief. We are punished for refusing to perform same sex civil unions because we believe acts of homosexuality are gravelly morally wrong. Where is our right to conscientious objection? Where is our human right to allow us to conscientiously object to being forced to Act in a certain manner?
John Kearney "The reason the other cases failed is that the Cross was to obvious and so discriminated against some other unmentioned party. So if you see a seikh in a turban or a moslem women with her veil let her know she is discriminating against you. If you can`t give the reason just ECHH. then report the instance to the nearest police station. "
I think John you may not properly have read the judgments. The reason the 2nd Cross case (Shirley Chaplin) failed was nothing to do with causing offence but entirely to do with the fact that her cross was on a chain and "might" therefore come into contact with a patients wounds. The ECHR made the point that since it is an appellate court it had not heard specific factual evidence as to whether a hanging cross could cause a danger of infection and so it could not make a decision on the point. Had Shirley Chaplin simply been wearing a pin on cross then that would have been acceptable on the basis of the ECHR judgment.
Amanda Peters "Where is our right to conscientious objection? Where is our human right to allow us to conscientiously object to being forced to Act in a certain manner?"
That is exactly the point made in the minority dissenting judgment in the Ladele case and is the reason why I think Ladele may well be appealed
I so hope Ladele goes to the Full Court and succeeds there. In time to warn the government to protect registrars now in post from being called upon to celebrate same-sex marriage against their consciences.
Post a Comment