European Parliament votes to outlaw discrimination based on orientation

Briefing. This is the Sexual Orientation Regulation issue all over again, at the European level. Depending on how it is drafted, it raises not only the question of hoteliers being obliged to give double-beds to unmarried couples, and adoption agencies to give children to same-sex couples, but also the things we narrowly avoided with the UK legislation. These include the provision of 'services' by the Church, such as the sacrament of marriage, and discrimination by the Church in ordination and the religious life  (by sex, by sexual orientation, and against transexuals). The Communists and militant liberals and Greens who voted for this Directive would relish the opportunity to give the Church a kicking.

From C-Fam: In last week's plenary session, the European Parliament (EP) voted 360 to 277 in favor of an 'Anti-Discrimination Directive' that critics say paves the way for interference in the social policies of member states and strengthens the hand of homosexual activists. The legislative resolution, called the “Equal treatment of persons irrespective of religion or belief, disabilities or sexual orientation,” was voted on after passing the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Union (EU).

Originally intended to serve as an equal treatment directive for the disabled by prohibiting discrimination with respect to accessing “goods and services, including housing,” the directive was expanded to include the categories of religion or belief, age and “sexual orientation.”

Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Vice-President of the parliamentary working group of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) and a member of the European Green Party, chaired the directive’s drafting committee and drew up the resolution. Buitenweg vigorously stressed the importance of “combating all forms of discrimination,” stating that “It must be possible for two men to occupy a hotel room” though it is unclear where in Europe this is not allowed.

Critics allege that non-governmental organizations pushing “homosexual rights,” such as ILGA, tried advancing their agenda by broadening the directive to encompass elimination of all forms of discrimination, explicitly adding discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” (ILGA has been rejected for UN status for non-governmental organizations for many years because of its connection to pedophile groups.)

Commentators see the directive as another example of the EU imposing one particular view of morality upon its member states. The tendency of the EU to exceed its mandate and impose its moral predilections upon countries was seen a few weeks ago when the Serbian parliament buckled to EU pressure by adopting an anti-discrimination law favored by homosexual rights advocates in the hope of becoming a member of the EU.

One example of intolerance in the name of tolerance is the case of Swedish Pastor Åke Green, who was convicted of violating a Swedish non-disparagement law for a sermon criticizing homosexual conduct as sinful, though his conviction was overturned on appeal. The ongoing fear is that the new sexual orientation provision invites further interference in member states’ national social policies and invites coercion of those who believe homosexual conduct to be immoral to act against their beliefs.

Before becoming binding on member states, the Anti-Discrimination Directive still must be voted on by the EU Council of Ministers, a separate body that effectively functions as an upper legislative chamber. The Council of Ministers is comprised of the ministers from each nation whose portfolio encompasses the issue being voted on. Each country’s vote is weighted in accordance with the relative size of its population, with the vote of Italy, France, Great Britain and Germany having the most weight and Malta the least.

Passage of the directive was attributable to a coalition of communist, liberal, socialist and Green parties.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hotel sued for refusing double bed to gay couple

Briefing.

From CFNews: The Christian owners of a seaside hotel may be prosecuted after refusing to allow a homosexual couple to stay in a double room.Peter and Hazelmary Bull are facing an unprecedented court case under controversial new equality laws.Martyn Hall, who lives with his civil partner Steven Preddy, has lodged a county court claim for up to £5,000 in damages alleging 'direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation'.

But the Bulls deny the charge, saying they have a long-standing policy of banning all unmarried couples, both heterosexual and gay, from sharing a bed at the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion near Penzance in Cornwall.



Mrs Bull, a 62-year-old great-grandmother, said that even her brother and his female partner had to stay in separate rooms when they visited the hotel.

The Bulls, who have the backing of the Christian Institute, have operated their 'married only' policy since they bought the hotel in 1986. The hotel website says: 'We have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only.' Last August, the Bulls received a letter from Stonewall, the gay rights organisation, saying it had received a complaint and warning the hotel it was breaking the law.

The following month Mr Preddy, from Bristol, rang to book a double room for two nights. Mrs Bull, who took the call, said last night that she had wrongly assumed that he would be staying with his wife before she accepted the booking. When Mr Preddy and Mr Hall arrived, they were told by the manager, Bernie Quinn, that the hotel could not honour the booking. The couple told him he was acting illegally before leaving and reporting the incident to police. Mrs Bull insisted last night: 'I have had people clearly involved in affairs and under-age people who have tried to book in here for sex, and I have refused them the same as I refused these gentlemen because I won't be a party to anything which is an affront to my faith under my roof.'

The couple's solicitor, Tom Ellis, from the Manchester-based firm Aughton Ainsworth, said: 'Our argument is that the regulations impinge on the Bulls' human rights. 'Under the European Convention on Human Rights, people are able to hold a religious belief and manifest it in the way they act.' A spokesman for Stonewall said: 'We look forward to the hotel changing its policy to reflect equality, the 21st Century and the law.' [MailOnline]

Read More...

Summary only...

EU 'anti-discrimination' threat

Briefing.

From the Christian Institute. New Proposed European Anti –Discrimination Directive –A Threat to Religious Liberty in the UK and Across Europe.

There is a new proposed European Directive which is rapidly in the process of going through the various stages of the European Parliament. This proposed Anti-Discrimination Directive prohibits discrimination and harassment on the grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation and religion or belief for:

social protection (including social security and healthcare); social advantages; education (but not the content of teaching) ; access to and the supply of goods and other services which are available to the public, including housing (applying to individuals only insofar as they are performing a professional or commercial activity).

Seeking to prohibit discrimination on grounds of disability and age is not contentious. However, it is of concern that the proposed directive includes sexual orientation and religion or belief.

Lessons from the EU’s Employment Discrimination Directive It might be thought that the Directive would enhance religious liberty. However, the implementation of the 2000 Employment Discrimination Directive has given cause for concern. As a result of the Directive, a Bishop of the Anglican Church was successfully sued by a homosexual after not being given a position as a youth minister. A British Christian charity was successfully sued for refusing to promote an atheist support worker.

Removal of Rights of Conscience The new Directive could remove rights of
conscience for those whose religious beliefs prevent them endorsing certain
homosexual and religious practices. A Christian architect should not be
required to design a mosque. A Christian publication should not be required to
advertise material promoting homosexual activity.

We are concerned that the Directive could remove Christianity from public
services. An atheist patient should not be able to sue a hospital because there
is a Bible in the bedside locker. Local councils and schools should not be
intimidated into cancelling Christmas carol services.

Promotion of Homosexuality In the UK similar legislation has been widely
interpreted as requiring the homosexual lifestyle to be promoted by public
services. Adoption agencies, with public funding, which do not believe in
placing children with same sex couples, have had to close. Foster parents have
been removed from council registers because they are not willing to promote
homosexuality to their children. Only the threat of legal action has led to
their reinstatement.

It is of concern that the Directive could remove Christianity from public
services. An atheist patient should not be able to sue a hospital because there
is a Bible in the bedside locker. Local councils and schools should not be
intimidated into cancelling Christmas carol services.

Harassment It is of deep concern what the harassment laws could do to free
speech. Unlike criminal harassment the EU law will have a very low threshold
and therefore be easy to prove. The mere explanation of the relevant religious
belief to a homosexual or a Christian communication on your religious beliefs
to those of another faith may be interpreted as amounting to harassment.
Harassment is from the subjective perspective of the person alleging the
harassment.

The loose wording of the new EU harassment law leaves huge scope for bogus and
trivial complaints which will limit freedom of speech and religious liberty.

The sexual orientation regulations in England and Wales did not include
harassment. The High Court in Northern Ireland struck out the harassment
provisions for parallel sexual orientation regulations.

As a result of a UK Government consultation response to a forthcoming Equality
Bill, with around 4,000 responses from a wide range of stake-holders, the
Government decided not to extend protection against harassment outside work, on
the grounds of sexual orientation or religion or belief, because they did not
see evidence of a real problem.

Exemptions Article 3 of the draft Directive contains exemptions for religious
schools and churches and other organisations based on religion or belief.
However, it is not clear whether the exemption for religious organisations is
aimed only at protecting existing laws that guarantee religious freedom, or
whether it allows Member States to introduce new protections when implementing
the Directive. The definition of religious organisations protected by the
exemptions is also unclear.

Where church-based groups hire facilities to enable them to run social
activities, the religious exemptions will not protect them.

Where religious organisations provide welfare and care, a potential claim for
discrimination could be made against the organisation for refusing to condone
same sex activities e.g. refusing a double room in a Christian care home to a
same-sex couple.

Balance of Rights The proposed Directive has profound implications for the
fundamental rights of European citizens to freedom of religion. The Directive
and the accompanying documents do not appear to have properly considered the
need to have mechanisms to balance conflicting fundamental rights with each
other and without doing so, it may create at the very least indirect
discrimination against religious believers. In our opinion, the absence of the
word “morals”, found in Articles 8(2), 9(2), 10(2) and 11(2) of the European
Convention on Human Convention of Human Rights, from the balancing recital in
the Directive is symbolic of the changes being made.

It is essential that religious beliefs and the rights of the homosexual
community are properly balanced otherwise well-meaning Directives such as the
proposed Directive will themselves become instruments of discrimination or
oppression. There are many unanswered questions as to the compatibility of the
proposed Directive for religious organisations and individuals with the ECHR,
the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and the Declaration on Elimination
of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief,
UN Resolution 36/55. The religious freedom of its citizens is the hallmark of a
democratic society and a core value for modern human rights law.

Including Fundamental Rights within Article 3 An explanation of the Directive
has stated that the prohibition of discrimination should go hand in hand with
other fundamental rights and freedoms such as freedom of religion. Yet these
fundamental rights are only in a Recital not in the Articles, which are the
main part of the Directive. A recent European case ruling on the principle of
equality overruled Recital 22 of the Employment Directive and it is of concern
that this may create a future precedent for overruling Recitals in other
directives. [See Case C-267/06 Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen
Bühnen at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006J0267:EN:HTML]

There are many different European Parliamentary Committees considering this
proposed Directive, but the main one is the Libe Committee. The current
proposed Directive can be found at the following link (from page 13):
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/com(2008)
426_/com(2008)426_en.pdf

Amendments and Approximate Timetable There have been many proposed amendments
put forward by the various Committees and individual MEPs to this proposed
Directive. These many amendments will be considered by the Libe Committee on
the 17th February 2009 and voted upon. European Parliamentary parties may then
put down further amendments but not individual MEPs. MEPs are expected to vote
on the Directive in the European Parliament plenary session on the 23 March
2009 (indicative date). After that time the Directive will then be considered
by the Council of Ministers (possibly in April 2009 but there is no indicative
date yet) and unless there is a nation veto, the Directive will then become an
official European Directive by being entered into the official journal.

We do not know what the final Directive will say. However there are a number of
amendments already proposed from a Committee which may make the Directive even
worse. This includes an amendment to even remove the fundamental rights and
freedoms from a Recital, where this shows the importance of respecting such
rights while prohibiting discrimination. There are also proposed amendments to
destroy any special status nations may accord to marriage. Stating that where
types of relationship, other than marriage are recognised as equivalent to
marriage under national law, the principle of equal treatment should apply.
Discrimination is about the need to protect fundamental rights not to promote
or create a hierarchy of rights and religious freedom is a core human right
which should not be trampled upon.

Multiple Discrimination It is of concern that there are amendments which seek to
extend the prohibition of discrimination to multiple discrimination. Seeking to
introduce multiple discrimination on the grounds of age and disability is not
contentious. The easiest non-contentious example of a multiple discrimination
case is of a black woman with the potential of alleging multiple discrimination
on the combination of race and sex. But what about the comparison between a
young white male Christian (religion only) and a black disabled elderly lesbian
of a different religion or belief (religion or belief, race, disability, age,
sex and sexual orientation equals 6 unbalancing multiple discrimination
potential equality factors).

This illustrates how the introduction of multiple discrimination between
religions and between religion and sexual orientation is so complex, highly
unadvisable and requires careful consideration. Multiple Discrimination is a
concept which lacks legal clarity and instead of a positive approach to life
may serve simply to generate an aggressive, unhealthy, detrimental multiple
victim mentality. It upsets the delicate balance of rights which are already
complex enough when there are only two conflicting fundamental rights being
considered. It could very easily result in the application of unreasonable and
circumstantially irrelevant weightings which result in both a hierarchy and
unfair balancing of fundamental rights, which instead of protecting rights
becomes of itself oppressive.

There have already been numerous examples of how existing equality and diversity
laws in the UK have led to the infringement of religious liberty. For example,
see the cases described on the Christian Legal Centre Website.


Let us pray to God for a miracle as Christian European Citizens of all European
nations contact their MEPs and Nations overwhelmingly reject this new Proposed
Anti-Discrimination European Directive and restore the original proposal to
remove both sexual orientation and religion or belief from the Directive.

What happens in Europe is important as Directives are European legal obligations
for all European countries. Please prayerfully consider writing to your MEP in
your own words, using the material in this paper to help you.

MEP link for UK

Read More...

Summary only...

Exeter Christian Union: victory

Briefing.

From Christian Concern for Our Nation: XETER University’s Christian Union won a crucial vote on Friday 7th December 2007 in their highly-publicised human rights battle with the campus Students’ Guild and University authorities. On 7th December 2007, their prolonged battle with the University took a substantial step forward when the CU won a democratic student vote at an Emergency General Meeting of the Students’ Guild at which the CU were invited by the Guild to present a motion allowing them to
require all officers and members of the CU to sign a statement of belief.


On January 5th 2007, Ben Martin, a member of the Christian Union, filed papers
at the High Court following the suspension of the 50-year-old Christian Union
(CU) from the official list of student societies on campus, and the freezing of
its Student Union bank account. The CU had also been banned from free use of
Students’ Guild premises, and from advertising events within Guild facilities,
because the Students’ Guild claimed the CU constitution and activities did not
conform to its Equal Opportunities standards.


Following detailed negotiations between the CU, the Guild and the University,
and between the National Union of Students and the Universities and Colleges
Christian Unions (UCCF), and under the threat of High Court action, the CU have
now secured:-


An active Student Union bank account;
Re-listing on the Guild’s official list of societies; and
Permission to use and advertise CU events on Guild/campus premises.


At 12-noon on Friday 7th December, the Student body voted by 122 to 47 that the
relationship between the CU and Student Guild should reflect proposed new
guidelines on religious societies as agreed between the National Union of
Students and UCCF, which would allow the CU to ask officers and members to sign
up to the aims and beliefs of the society, whilst all meetings and events
remain open to all students at Exeter University.


Commenting on the vote, Ben Martin, who has since left the university, said:
“This continues to be a long and hard fight for the rights of Christian
students to assemble and form as a group of fellow believers under a lawful
constitution. We support the rights of any student on campus to assemble and
discuss/debate any topic with fellow students in what is a free society. This
all began 18 months ago when one student, after 50 years of the CU being on
campus, complained that he did not feel able to sign up to our statement of
belief. We pray now the Guild will ratify the vote as is right and proper and
we will be able to put this all behind us”


Ross Tranter, current CU president added: “The whole CU is pleased with this
vote and we hope now that the Guild will ratify the vote so that we may move
forward from this matter. We are simply looking forward to getting on with our
academic studies and to developing the work of the CU as a well-established,
successful and fully recognised society on campus. We hope the Guild will
recognise this important vote and not force us to proceed with legal action”


Andrea Williams, Director of the Christian Legal Centre, commented “This vote is
an important step forward towards a resolution in this case. It is a victory
for common sense, and a signal to the Guild on how students feel about a truly
diverse and equal agenda where freedom of religion and freedom of association
can be fully respected and integrated on campus. Christian students in Exeter
are showing courage and leadership beyond their years and fighting for these
great principles of a truly free and democratic society. Universities are the
places where the leaders of tomorrow are shaped and moulded, and it is
heartening to see Christian students claiming these important principles as
their own for the benefit of freedom for all.”


‘The Legal Rights of Student Christian Unions’, by Julian Rivers is a paper that
rebuts Mark Shaw QC’s Adjudication between the Christian Union and the Student
Guild.
http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=The+Legal+Rights+of+Student+Christian+Unions

Read More...

Summary only...

More anti-discrimination laws on the way

Briefing: not content with the SORs, the Government wants to go further. See the end for the danger that the Church could be legally forbidden from establishing the real sex of people applying to be priests or nuns.

From CFNews: The Government have published their Discrimination Law Review (DLR) which proposes the biggest ever shake-up to UK discrimination law. It proposes to take every single piece of existing legislation relating to discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and age, and put them all into a 'Single Equality Act' which will be overseen and enforced by a new body called the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

The Government are proposing to make it illegal to harass someone on the grounds of their religion or belief. However, the definition of harassment is extremely broad, and substantially depends on the perception of the person who makes an allegation of harassment and not the intention of the person accused of harassment. So, a Christian that went to a largely Muslim area to hand out tracts which said that Islam was a false religion, could be sued if a particular Muslim felt that the tract had either 'violated their dignity' or put them in an 'offensive environment'.

The Government have also brought back one of the most controversial proposals that they previously tried to bring in via the Sexual Orientation Regulations only a few months ago. They are proposing that it should be made illegal to harass someone on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Again, the problem is the really broad definition of harassment. This proposal would mean that although a Church is free under the SORs to gently refuse membership of the church to an unrepentant practising homosexual, that person, if they felt that they had been put in a 'humiliating environment' could sue the Church. Similarly, a homosexual could sue a church if they heard a sermon about sexual morality that included condemnation of homosexual practices.

The Government are also consulting on whether there should be a duty on public authorities to promote sexual orientation equality. This will mean that local authorities and other bodies will take active steps to ensure that all sorts of organisations do not discriminate based on homosexual practices. The danger is that this will be taken too far and will mean that Government funding is removed from Christian projects or that support is given to projects promoting homosexuality.

The Government are further consulting on whether there should be a duty on public authorities to promote religion or belief equality. There is a similar danger here that the sort of politically correct decisions (like local councils banning Christmas cards) that increasingly make the headlines, will be multiplied, with public funding being focused on promoting 'minority' religions like Islam and Hinduism.

Another part of the consultation paper seeks views on whether Churches should be able to treat people differently because they have had gender reassignment. If the Government subsequently decided not to allow churches to do so, then a church would not be able to object to a male member of the congregation, who had a sex change (taking on the appearance of a woman), from attending a women's retreat weekend.

The Government are further proposing that the law should protect transsexual people from practices that require them to disclose the fact that their actual sex differs from their physical appearance. So, for example, the Government would allow a man that has had a sex change operation, to be able to keep it secret that he has had that operation.

These are just some of the main provisions of the DLR that are of concern to Christians. The Discrimination Law Review consultation http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/frameworkforfairnessconsultaation

On the transexual priests and nuns issue: Leaders of the Catholic Church in England and Wales have accused the Government of using new equality laws to force them to ordain transsexuals as priests or allow them to become nuns. The bishops of England and Wales said that proposals to ban 'indirect discrimination' against people who have had gender reassignment operations would take away their right to check baptismal and confirmation certificates which would show if candidates for the priesthood, religious life or marriage had a hidden past. The Government plans to change the law so that such records are altered when a person has such an operation. Requesting an exemption, the Archbishop of Cardiff, the Most Rev Peter Smith, said: 'Many Christians believe, on strongly held religious grounds, that gender is given before birth and cannot be changed.'

Read More...

Summary only...

Anglican bishop condemned for refusing to employ dissident homosexual as youth worker

Latest update: important clarificaction of the law.

From CCfoN (in part): As was expected, the Tribunal reinforced the High Court’s position that there is no difference between sexual “orientation” and sexual “behaviour” in the eyes of the law. It did not matter that the Bishop was not discriminating because Mr Reaney was attracted to men, but because of Mr Reaney’s lifestyle as a sexually active homosexual. The Tribunal decided that on the face of it, Mr Reaney had been unlawfully discriminated against because he was a homosexual.

However, the Tribunal decided that although Mr Reaney was not applying for a job as a clergyman, the post of Diocesan Youth Officer did fall within the “very narrow” exception for which the Church of England could discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. This was a valuable decision for all churches – Stonewall had argued aggressively that churches should not be able to refuse to employ practising homosexuals in any jobs other than the clergy.

Churches that want to protect the integrity of their ministry should therefore be able to do so, providing the job they are recruiting for involves the employee being “closely associated with the promotion of the Church.” In such a case, it is likely they can ensure that the employee is not a practising homosexual.

However, specifically in relation to the Church of England, the Tribunal drew one key distinction between clergy and non-clergy posts, by saying that “we do not think it would be in accordance with the Issues [in Human Sexuality] statement to require [unmarried] lay persons to commit to celibacy.” Sadly, the equivocal position of the Church of England means that the courts have said that the most that Anglican churches can require of lay employees is that they are not in a practising homosexual relationship during the employment. Lay employees cannot be expected to be repentant about past homosexual behaviour, or to acknowledge that such behaviour was wrong. Of course, this position would change if the House of Bishops and General Synod were to revise the Issues on Human Sexuality statement and strengthen its requirements. Thankfully this part of the judgment does not apply to denominations outside of the Church of England.

(The full press release will appear soon here.)

Update 19/07/07: big hat-tip to Hermeneutic of Continuity for the following, not included in the CCfoN press-release below (our emphasis):

The crucial legal point in this case was highlighted by the solicitor, Alison Downie of Bindman & Partners:
"In this landmark test case the tribunal found not only that he suffered direct discrimination but that if necessary they would have found indirect discrimination in the diocese imposing a requirement of celibacy for lay people in employment within the Church."
So it is now against the law for a Christian organisation to require that its employees undertake to abide by Christian teaching.


Briefing 18/07/07. It seems that John Reaney had had sexual relationships outside marriage, and although he was single at the time of the job interview, did not satisfy Bishop Priddis of his moral character. Priddis' subsequent decision not to employ him as a 'youth worker' has been declared an act of illegal discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, under the SORs. This is exactly what we thought would happen, and is an extremely worrying result.

From Christian Concern for our Nation (and the BBC): “A gay man has won his case for unlawful discrimination after he was refused a youth official's job by a Church of England bishop.

The employment tribunal said John Reaney, 42, was discriminated against "on grounds of sexual orientation" by the Hereford diocesan board of finance. Mr Reaney, from Colwyn Bay, Conwy, said he was "delighted" at the decision.

The Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, said he was "naturally disappointed" and may appeal.

During the tribunal in Cardiff in April, Mr Reaney said he was questioned by Bishop Priddis on his previous gay relationship during a two-hour meeting on 19 July 2006. It came after he was told he had emerged as the outstanding candidate for the job during an eight-man interview, the hearing heard. Mr Reaney, whose case was supported by Stonewall, also told the tribunal he was left "very embarrassed and extremely upset" following the meeting and said he felt like "a total waste of space".

During his evidence, Bishop Priddis said he had made clear to Mr Reaney that a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post.

But the tribunal found that the Bishop should only have considered the present lifestyle of Mr Reaney, who is single, and he should have not questioned his
future relationships.

Delivering the judgement, the tribunal said the case would now be listed for a remedy hearing. "The respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual
orientation," said the judgement. Mr Reaney, who had already worked in two other Anglican dioceses, where he had been praised for his achievements, said he was delighted.

He said the case "demonstrated to many lesbian and gay Christians working for
God within the Church of England that they are entitled to fair and respectful
treatment". But speaking to a news conference in Hereford on Wednesday, the Bishop said: "I still think the decision I made was the right one." "I regret the polarisation of view which takes place when these things happen," he said, adding he had made the decision after a "great deal of prayer and contemplation".

Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said the verdict was "a triumph for 21st Century decency over 19th Century prejudice". "We're very happy for John," he said. "The tribunal has rightly made clear that the Church of England cannot
discriminate against gay people with impunity. No-one, not even a bishop, is
exempt from the law."

Under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, it is
illegal to discriminate against people as a result of their sexual orientation,
but the law does contain an exemption for organised religion.”

LCF comment

At first sight this judgment appears to be a serious affront to the freedom for churches to guarantee that their children and teenagers are being taught by people who are living according to the Bible’s clear teaching about sexual morality. The law is shifting rapidly so that where there is a ‘competition of rights’ it is the homosexual’s right that trumps the Christian’s right. This is a situation that needs to be reversed. At the very least, our law should recognise conscience exemptions for Christians so that they can live according to their faith. A fuller analysis of the situation will be made once we have received a copy of the judgment.

Read More...

Summary only...

Exeter Christian Union told: Muslims should be able to join

Update: this judgement sounds like a farce. For the original story, see here.

From Christian Concern for our Nation: Independent Adjudicator Mark Shaw QC says Muslims should be able to head up the Christian Union at Exeter University

Ben Martin, the Christian student at the centre of the Exeter University Student Guild row over the Human Rights of members of the Christian Union, has today rejected the Independent Adjudication into the case as "unbalanced and selective". He will be seeking a Judicial Review in the High Court.

Mark Shaw QC, the independent adjudicator appointed by Exeter University Strongly criticised the Constitution of Exeter CU because it restricted the membership to Christians, despite the fact its meetings were open to everyone – of all faiths and none. He held it discriminatory that the CU should be run by Christians and held that the Guild policies in forcing the CU to be led by members open to other faiths was "laudable".

Last year, the Student Guild forced the Exeter Christian Union to change its name to Exeter 'Evangelical' Christian Union following one complaint (in a 50 year period) by a student. The Guild also froze the CUs bank account and wrote to them banning them from holding or advertising events on Guild premises.

On January 5, Ben Martin, a member of the Christian Union filed papers at the High Court asking for a Judicial Review of the Guild's actions under the Human Rights Act. He was subsequently informed that the University would require the CU to go through an informal internal adjudication procedure before any external procedure could be followed.

First, the University tried to impose a leading lawyer with strong connections to the National Union of Students on the CU as adjudicator. The process was then delayed to after Easter (a time when students are revising or sitting exams). Following complaints, the University brought in another barrister, this time a QC, Mark Shaw (there is no obligation to appoint a barrister, only an independent person of standing in the community).

Ben Martin said: "The university established an internal appeals process to resolve the dispute and the CU engaged with the process in full seeking a non judicial resolution of the dispute. Out of primarily public funds, the university and Guild had access to leading firms of solicitors and barristers (including QCs) whilst the CU were denied all such assistance.

"Mr Shaw determined that the process should be 'legal' rather than informal as is usually the case, and also decided that the process should deal with substantive and procedural issues of law. He also stated that the CU should be prepared to pay the costs of the university and Guild which could have been more than £50,000."

When the CU complained at the legalised process, asked for an informal process without lawyers and that they should not be subject to costs, Mr Shaw refused.

Mr Martin said: "Any criticism of this process by the CU resulted in a sharp response from Mr Shaw, together with claims that the CU was uncooperative. Only when the CU refused to continue with a process that could bankrupt them, was there a guarantee of no costs.

"Mr Shaw held that the Guild were 'laudable' in their aims, the University had no responsibility for the discrimination against Christians, and that the CU was wrong to require that those leading the CU should be Christians. That position, he said, could be held by anyone of any faith or none, provided they agree to the objectives of the CU!

"In paragraph 92 (4) of his adjudication, Mr Shaw even goes on to suggest that on the Exeter University campus, the 'Welsh Society should be open to Scottish members; the wine society open to teetotal members, the choral society should be open to non-singing members, and the cheerleading society should be open to male members ...'

"Quite frankly, reading this from a QC, you don't know whether to laugh or cry! I would advise any student who wants to use the 'informal' adjudication process to be prepared to face QCs and potential costs beyond their means.

"I fully co-operated with Mr Shaw and he has treated my fundamental rights of religious association and belief in a derisory fashion. Issues of religious association and freedom of speech are fundamental human rights and not ones on
which I, or the CU is prepared to compromise."

The CU at Exeter has always said that taking the matter to Court would be a last resort, but in light of the Independent Adjudication from Mr Shaw, the CU finds itself in a position where it has no other option by to instruct the Human Right's barrister Paul Diamond to instigate Judicial Review proceedings against the University and Guild.

Read More...

Summary only...