COMMON SENSE AND TOLERANCE IS WHAT WE NEED

The Venerable David Newman's First Person column appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Common sense and tolerance is what we need

The European Court of Human Rights' rulings this week on the four cases of alleged religious discrimination reveal what a lack of imagination our law-bound culture displays.

Issues that might have been resolved with a bit of common sense and compromise have become expensive displays of intolerance. Whose intolerance – the employers or the employees? There's the issue. One person's freedom is another person's bondage.

If I want my neighbourhood to be quiet, I discriminate against those who want to make a noise, and vice versa. If my conscience makes me a vegetarian then I shouldn't work in a butcher's. But if employed in a supermarket, it should be possible for me not to have to work on the meat counter.

Clearly all the cases were not the same. Wearing a cross as a mark of faith should cause no problem in a tolerant society, provided that any health and safety issues were explained and heeded.

A marriage counsellor who preferred to give sexual advice and therapy to heterosexual couples rather than homosexual couples (and vice versa) could be accommodated in most organisations, unless of course it was contrary to their original job description, just as many professionals specialise in different areas.

A university lecturer who said that he didn't really get on with small children would not get prosecuted for not going to work in an infant school.

They tried to trap Jesus into taking a grand defiant step of conscience which polarised faith and the authorities when they asked Him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, the hated occupying and oppressive power of His day.

He asked to see a coin, pointed to Caesar's head and inscription on it and told them to give to Caesar what was Caesar's and to God what was God's.

In other words, he was saying that it was right and possible to be a good citizen and a conscientious believer; and both individuals and organisations should work to enable both.

The individual conscience may not always be right, but it should always be treated with respect. Similarly we may disagree with the prevailing ethos, but we should choose our battles carefully and always be lovingly principled.

Exchanging religious intolerance for secular intolerance (or vice versa) is not a recipe for a good society.

The Venerable David Newman is Archdeacon of Loughborough.

PROMISE OVER FAITH SYMBOLS

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Promise over faith symbols

I am pleased that the Prime Minister said that the Government will back the right to display a symbol of faith in the workplace.

He also said that the Government will change the law if that is necessary so that employees can wear religious symbols at work.

The way Ms Nadia Eweida was treated by British Airways because she refused to hide or remove a necklace that had a cross on it was a disgrace.

Also, the story of Shirley Chaplin, a nurse, who was banned by the Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Trust from working on the wards because she refused to hide a necklace with a cross on it, was a disgrace.

They have taken their cases to the European Court of Human Rights and the cases will be heard at Strasbourg in September.

However, the Government's lawyers are resisting the appeal.It should be acceptable that people of all faiths should be allowed to wear symbols of faith in the workplace.

So I am hoping that the Prime Minister will stick to his promise.

Kevin Fletcher

NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY WILL ADVISE IN RELIGIOUS VS GAY RIGHTS CASES

This has been posted today on the website of Pink News, Europe's largest gay news service.

National Secular Society will advise in religious vs gay rights cases

The National Secular Society has been granted permission to intervene in four religious rights cases due to come before the European Court of Human Rights. 

The body will submit legal arguments in four cases where plaintiffs are appealing against UK court decisions – two of which involve Christian employees who refused to provide services to gay people. 

The other two concern workers who were barred from wearing religious symbols. 

Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the NSS, said his organisation would focus on legal arguments, rather than expressing opinions on the cases. 

In the past, the NSS has praised judgements in the case of one of the plaintiffs, Islington registrar Lillian Ladele, who said her Christian faith meant she could not carry our civil partnerships.

Mr Porteous Wood said: “These four cases have a major bearing on the extent to which employees’ manifestation of their religion can impinge on others. We want to make sure that the European court considers all aspects of the relevant law. 

“The NSS submission will deal with the implications for equal treatment that would be raised by the granting of greater protection to actions motivated by religious belief than is granted to actions motivated by fundamental beliefs that happen to be non-religious in nature. 

“The NSS will further focus on the degree of protection which it is necessary under the convention to afford third parties who may be subjected to a detriment which is motivated by, or a manifestation of, a religious belief. 

We will also deal with the significance of a religiously neutral public space for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 

“Finally, we will address the nature of the limitations prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also applied to intervene in the four cases, which are likely to be heard together. 

The commission stated last month that it believes ‘reasonable adjustments’ could be made for such employees in the same way that disabled people are accommodated in the workplace. This could mean allowing anti-gay Christian workers to swap shifts to avoid gay people. 

After strong criticism from Stonewall, Peter Tatchell, trade unions and some MPs, the body appears to have decided not to argue for ‘reasonable adjustments’. 

Former Stonewall chief executive Angela Mason, who is the body’s only LGBT commissioner, said this week that the EHRC had come to a “preliminary view” on the matter. 

In response to emails from concerned PinkNews.co.uk readers, she wrote: “The commission has already decided not to put forward ‘reasonable adjustment’ arguments if we do continue with our intervention.”