COURT BANS PRAYERS AT FORMAL COUNCIL MEETINGS

This story appears today on the website of the Christian Institute:

Court bans prayers at formal council meetings

The saying of prayers as a ‘formal’ part of local council meetings has been ruled unlawful by the High Court today in an extraordinary judgment.

The judge, Mr Justice Ouseley, said there is no law that gives councils the power to do so.

But critics hit back, saying the ruling also means a council has no power to formally start its meetings with the national anthem.

In December the head of the Equality Commission, Trevor Phillips, said he ‘dropped his coffee’ when he heard the case was being taken to court, calling it “nonsense on stilts”.

Today’s ruling only affects the formal meetings of local government, and does not stop councils from holding prayers outside of that setting if they wish to do so.

And the court rejected claims that the saying of prayers discriminates against, or breaches the human rights of, secularists.

The practice of saying prayers at Bideford Town Council meetings is understood to date back to the days of Queen Elizabeth the First.

The Council has, recently, twice voted in support of continuing with the prayers.

Individual councillors were free to not take part in the prayers if they wished, and the register of attendance was not taken until after the prayers had finished.

Nevertheless, a court case was brought by the National Secular Society and a secularist former councillor, Mr Clive Bone, against Bideford Town Council.

The claimants’ legal case rested on three arguments: that the prayers were discriminatory against atheist councillors, the prayers were a breach of human rights laws, and that the council had no lawful authority to hold prayers as part of its formal meetings.

The judge rejected the first two arguments, but ruled: “The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a Council is not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue.”

The Act does allow councils to do anything that “facilitates, or is conducive or is incidental” to a council’s functions, but Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that the saying of prayers at formal meetings does not fall within that provision.

If councillors are not compelled to pray, the judge reasoned, then prayers cannot be an essential part of a council’s functions and therefore should not be part of the formal council meeting.

The decision was criticised by The Christian Institute – a national charity that defends religious liberty and underwrote Bideford Council’s legal costs.

Institute spokesman Simon Calvert said: “We welcome the finding that the saying of prayers isn’t discriminatory, or a breach of equality laws, or human rights laws.

“But it is extraordinary to rule that councils have no lawful authority to choose, if they so wish, to start their formal meetings with prayers. That is simply wrong.

“The logic of the ruling is that councils would also be going beyond the law if they took a vote and decided to start each formal council meeting with the national anthem.

“There is no way that Parliament, when it passed the Local Government Act 40 years ago, intended it to be used to outlaw prayers.

“This case was brought by a campaign group that wants to drive Christianity out of public life, and the High Court has today given them great encouragement to take matters further.

“It is high time Parliament put a stop to this assault upon our national heritage. What’s next? Will prayers at the cenotaph end up in court?

“What about local councils that wish to formally mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee as part of their official meeting? Is that now unlawful too?”

Christian MP sets up inquiry into religious discrimination

An interesting piece published today on the website of The Guardian:

Christian MP sets up inquiry into religious discrimination

Amid General Synod discussions on religious freedom, Gary Streeter calls on colleagues to examine hate crime and equality

By Riazat Butt, Religious Affairs Correspondent

A select committee-style inquiry on Christianity is to be held in order to clarify how the law affects believers, amid increasing claims of religious discrimination and persecution.

The public hearings, scheduled to last for about three months this autumn, will invite peers and politicians to examine legislation on hate crime and equality and evaluate whether changes are needed.

The inquiry is the idea of Gary Streeter MP, a Christian who chairs the cross-party group Christians in Parliament. He said that, while there was religious freedom in Britain, some groups were "whipping up an alternative view and generating fear" where there did not need to be any. He said: "That fear is growing, that voice is growing. There is a particular problem. In the last 12 months, we have had legal cases that provoked concern. These now need to be tackled."

Christian Legal Centre, which is at the forefront of representing those who feel they are being discriminated against in the workplace because of their beliefs, said earlier this year it had about 50 cases on its books and received up to five calls a day from Christians seeking to take action against employers for failing to respect their faith.

Their clients have included Colin Atkinson, an electrician who wanted to display a crucifix in his van, and Owen and Eunice Johns, who refused to tell foster children in their care that homosexuality was acceptable.

Streeter said the panel would invite submissions from legal professionals, businesses, individuals and social policy groups from faith and non-faith backgrounds.

"The outcome of our inquiry might be that the law needs to be nudged back in certain areas and we won't shy away from saying so," he said.

"The public at large don't care what we do but, in the Christian community, there is a measure of concern about the issue. They will be pleased to see Christian parliamentarians doing something. They will be pleased to receive some reassurance that the fear whipped up is not necessary.

"It's only people of the Christian faith running up into the law; secularists aren't doing that. We are not putting one group of people above one another."

The MP's move came as the Church of England grappled with the issue of religious freedom at this weekend's General Synod meeting in York.

The chair of its public affairs council, Dr Phillip Giddings, told the legislative arm of the Church of England that some employers had "interpreted the law in ways which seem to assume that reasonable respectful expressions of faith, are, almost by definition, offensive".

He said: "This is a cause of great concern. We shall continue to monitor the emerging case law on how far employers can lawfully limit the ability of Christians to manifest their faith in the workplace."

Synod member Alison Ruoff asked if he was aware of an increasing marginalisation of Christians, leading to persecution. Giddings replied: "I am well aware that many Christians believe that to be the case. We are reflecting those views in our dealings with government."

The bishop of Bradford, Nick Baines, welcomed the inquiry: "It will be a good thing to have people in parliament doing this kind of thing. They can nail down some of the myths.

"I don't believe Christians are being persecuted. Having said that, I do think there is still a degree of religious illiteracy which is prejudiced against Christians in some circumstances. To say we're being persecuted is nonsense."

Trevor Phillips, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission, claimed last month that the person most likely to "feel slighted" because of their religion was an evangelical Christian.

In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, he said there were a lot of Christian activist voices who appeared "bent on stressing the kind of persecution that I don't think really exists in this country".