Some exchanges from the House of Commons last Thursday:
Kitty Ussher (Burnley) (Lab): … I know that my right hon. and learned Friend shares my view that it is wrong that religious organisations should be able to discriminate against, for example, gay people or women who apply for non-religious posts in those organisations. She will also know that a Government amendment on that subject was defeated recently in the other place. Will she therefore take this opportunity to clarify for hon. Members whether she will reintroduce such an amendment when the Equality Bill returns to the Commons?
Ms Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The Government’s policy is clear and has not changed. Our view remains that religious organisations employing people should comply with the law that applies to all other employers, whether that is the requirement to have written contracts, pay sick pay or the minimum wage, or the requirement not to sack people unfairly or discriminate against them. However, our position has always been that for specifically religious work—as a vicar, priest, rabbi or imam—religious organisations would be exempt from non-discrimination law. A religious organisation cannot discriminate against gay people or women when it hires a bookkeeper, but it can when choosing a minister of religion.
The amendment that we proposed in the House of Lords did not intend to change that policy position. What it sought to do was make the distinction between religious and non-religious jobs clearer. The Lords did not regard our amendment as helpful. We will therefore leave the law as it is, and not bring the amendment back to this House. The law will remain as it was: in anti-discrimination law there is an exemption for religious jobs but not for non-religious jobs.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): With regard to what the Leader of the House said earlier about the Equality Bill, she will know that concern was expressed in the other place that her amendments were so tightly drawn that they could have encompassed even the Archbishop of York, because he spends a lot of his time working in the community, not just proclaiming the liturgy. Being positive, and now that the Government are not overturning their defeats, can we take it that the Government now accept the principle that the Churches must be allowed to regulate their own clergy according to their own conscience?
Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We never sought to, or indeed even unintentionally, propose non-discrimination laws covering bishops, rabbis, archbishops or priests. In the 2003 non-discrimination employment regulations, we explicitly allowed for an exemption for those involved in religious ministry, so I am sorry that he has taken the opportunity to spread a misapprehension. There was never an intention—and nor is there an intention—to apply the provisions to those involved in religious ministry. However, if a church, synagogue or mosque is hiring a cleaner, bookkeeper or finance officer, it will have to comply with the normal, non-discrimination provisions of employment, like all others. I hope that, instead of spreading misapprehension, he will reassure those who raised that concern with him that it never was the Government’s intention to make that change. The amendment simply clarified the difference between a religious and non-religious job, and whatever the criticisms of the drafting, which I do not accept, nobody could think that it would say that being Archbishop of Canterbury was not a religious job.
Mr. Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): Given that the right hon. and learned Lady clearly believes in its continued importance and relevance in today’s world, may we have a debate in Government time on papal infallibility?
Ms Harman: That is not a matter for the House. What are matters for the House are public policy and legislative scrutiny, and what is a matter for the Government is to ensure that, although we respect the fact that some areas of religion must be subject to the control and decisions of those religions, for the rest, religious organisations, like everyone else, obey the law.
The Church Times today carries my report of recent events under the headline: Churches to keep their exemption from equality law, Harman confirms.
THE LAW covering church employment will stay as it is, the Minister for Women and Equality, Harriet Harman, said on Tuesday. She was speaking after the defeat in the Lords of an amendment to the Equality Bill (News, 29 January), which sought to clarify the exemption for religious bodies from the existing legislation, to ensure that it applied only to church ministers…
This report also includes two sections on more of the House of Lords debates from Monday and Wednesday of last week, including the one on Civil Partnerships venues.
Earlier on Monday of last week, the House considered a proposal from Lord Alli to to amend the Civil Partnerships Act to allow religious venues to be used.
Lord Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, spoke in support. He said: “The Government were absolutely right to respect the religious sensitivities of the Church of England when the Civil Partnership Bill went through Parliament, but since that time a new situation has emerged. The Quakers, liberal Jews, and other religious bodies have made it quite clear that they want permission to conduct these ceremonies in a religious context with religious language. This is a fundamental issue of religious freedom…”
Cif: belief yesterday carried a comment article by Riazat Butt headlined More Catholic than the pope.
There is still much anger over the pope’s comments about UK equality laws. Part of me wonders why people are surprised by the nature of his observations – they are exactly what one would expect – and part of me also wonders why people are focusing on the equality bill, which was more about Anglicans than Catholics. The Catholic bishops did not turn a blind eye to the proposed legislation, but it was the Lords Spiritual who went to war over it. They won. Well done them. That the established church is trying to shut out people whose lifestyle is at odds with Christian ethos brings the words “stable”, “door” and “bolted” to mind. Their attempts to legitimise “sexual cleansing” also reminds me of the time that Katharine Jefferts Schori accused the C of E of double standards…
and she concludes:
While I accept the pope was out of order for passing judgment on equality legislation and UK attitudes towards homosexuality, the same level of anger and outrage must be directed at those Church of England bishops who fought tooth and nail to keep the status quo, to preserve their right to discriminate against gays and lesbians and to institutionalise and legitimise prejudice against anyone they deemed to be unfit for purpose because of their lifestyle.
Newspaper headlines on Wednesday were confusing:
Independent Jerome Taylor Harriet Harman defends equality legislation following Pope’s criticism
Telegraph Andrew Porter and Martin Beckford Victory for religious groups as Labour gives up on Equality Bill clause condemned by Pope
The Times Rosemary Bennett and Ruth Gledhill Harriet Harman backs down over employment equality for churches
The Independent also had The Big Question: What is equality legislation, and why is the Pope so concerned about it? by Andy McSmith
Andrew Brown interpreted all this as Harman retreats.
So what actually happened?
First, on Thursday last week, long before the Pope spoke, Harriet Harman answered a question in the House of Commons. You can read the Hansard record of it here. The relevant bit is also copied below the fold.
Second, this week the following statement was issued by the GEO on Tuesday:
Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality, said:
“There are religious jobs and non-religious jobs within organised religion. For example, a pensions assistant ensuring that the records database is kept up to date is not doing a religious job. Issuing and processing invoices, even if it is done in the employment of a church or other religious organisation is not a religious job.
“Employment and non-discrimination law applies to religious organisations when they employ people in non-religious jobs in the same way that it does to all other employers. We have never insisted on non-discrimination legislation applying to religious jobs such as being a vicar, a bishop, an imam or a rabbi.
“Religious organisations can decide themselves how to do that. However, when it comes to non-religious jobs, those organisations must comply with the law. We thought that it would be helpful for everyone involved to clarify the law, and that is what the amendment that we brought forward aimed to do. That amendment was rejected. So the law remains as it was.”
Andrew Rosindell: Will the Minister finally admit that were it not for the successful amendment from Baroness O’Cathain in the House of Lords earlier this week, the Equality Bill as unamended would have further restricted employment for people working in religious organisations?
Ms Harman: No, it would not. We thought that it would be helpful for everyone involved to clarify the law, and that is what the amendment that we brought forward aimed to do. That amendment was rejected. However, it would be helpful for the House to understand that there are religious jobs and non-religious jobs within organisations. For example, I would say that a pensions assistant ensuring that the records database is kept up to date was not doing a religious job. I would also say that issuing and processing invoices, even if it is done in the employment of the Church of England, is not a religious job.
To make it clear, the law applies to religious organisations when they employ people in non-religious jobs in the same way that it does to everyone else. We have always been clear that we are not going to insist on non-discrimination in relation to religious jobs such as being a vicar, a bishop, an imam or a rabbi. The law has stepped back from that and said that religious organisations can decide themselves how to do that. However, when it comes to non-religious jobs, those organisations must comply with the law, and that is how the law remains.
Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): The Minister will know that before the Government’s defeat, her Bill as unamended did not even make it clear that ministers of religion would have to live in accordance with the faith of their religion. Following the Government’s defeat in the other place not once but three times, by a coalition led by Conservative peers, bishops and Cross Benchers, the Bill has been improved. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will accept the decision in the other place to enable Churches to insist that key posts be held by those who live in accordance with the tenets of their faith, or will she seek to reverse that defeat in this House?
Ms Harman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to perpetrate a further misunderstanding. We are absolutely clear that we have never intended to extend the non-discrimination provisions to ministers of religion, nor have we ever tried to do so. Therefore they are exempted. We have always made it absolutely clear that they are and will continue to be exempted from the non-discrimination laws, and we have not sought to change that. There has been an issue about what is or is not a religious job, and we sought to clarify that. Our helpful clarification was not regarded as helpful in the House of Lords, and therefore the amendment was defeated. We will consider how to respond to that, but an official announcement will be made in due course, once these things have gone through the machinery, as it were. However, I would reassure hon. Members that the policy will remain as it is, and I would not want to lead them to anticipate that it will be brought forward again in this House.
Steve Bell in the Guardian had a cartoon, see Your equality laws are unjust, pope tells UK before visit.
Listen to Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff, speaking on Vatican Radio in Rome on Tuesday.
The Guardian published this editorial comment on Wednesday: Equalities legislation: The pope protests.
The Question of the Week at Cif:belief has been Does faith trump equality? (This was started on Monday, before the Pope spoke.)
In response to the Pope incident, Martin Pendergast wrote at Cif: belief All of us deserve equality.
And Simon Jenkins wrote An odious view, indeed. But I’m with Pope Benedict on this one.
The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks wrote in The Times The Pope is right about the threat to freedom.
The Archbishop of York gave a lecture, in Newcastle, titled Gracious Magnanimity vs. Tolerance. You can read the full text of that here.
Updated again Tuesday morning
The Pope has commented on British equality legislation.
Cif belief has republished an address delivered to the Catholic bishops of England and Wales by Pope Benedict on 1 February 2010.
The key paragraph is this:
Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed. I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended. Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others – on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth. Continue to insist upon your right to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society. In doing so, you are not only maintaining long-standing British traditions of freedom of expression and honest exchange of opinion, but you are actually giving voice to the convictions of many people who lack the means to express them: when so many of the population claim to be Christian, how could anyone dispute the Gospel’s right to be heard?
There has been a speedy British media reaction to this:
Telegraph Damian Thompson Pope tells English and Welsh bishops to get their act together and Has the Pope declared war on Labour?
Martin Beckford Pope Benedict XVI criticises ‘unjust’ effects of Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill
Press Association Pope confirms he will visit Britain Headline changed to Pope attacks equality laws in UK
The Times Ruth Gledhill Pope Benedict XVI confirms first state visit to UK and Pope: Britain’s equal rights legislation ‘violates’ natural law and Pope Benedict XVI attacks Labour’s equality push
BBC Pope Benedict confirms first papal UK visit since 1982
Guardian Riazat Butt Pope condemns gay equality laws ahead of first UK visit
Independent Jerome Taylor Pope: I’ll visit but I don’t like your equality laws
Monday evening additions
Government Equalities Office press statement:
“The Pope acknowledges our country’s firm commitment to equality for all members of society. We believe everyone should have a fair chance in life and not be discriminated against. The Equality Bill will make Britain a fairer and more equal place.”
Telegraph Editorial Opinion Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill should be laid to rest headline changed to The Pope, Labour and religious freedom.
The Times Ruth Gledhill Pope Benedict XVI misses the point in his attack on UK equality law
Guardian Andrew Brown Papal aggression
Catholic Herald Mark Greaves Pope Benedict condemns Equality Bill
Reuters Philip Pullella Pope confirms Britain visit, attacks equality bill and second version of this story
Telegraph Martin Beckford Pope Benedict XVI attacks Labour’s ‘unjust’ equality laws ahead of UK visit and later version Pope attacks Labour laws on equality
Tuesday morning updates
Daily Mail Simon Caldwell Pope condemns Harman equality drive as ‘violation of natural law’
Mirror POPE SLAMS RIGHTS BILL
BBC Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill
Herald (Scotland) Outrage as Pope attacks UK equality laws ahead of state visit
Press Association Anger as Pope slams UK equality law
Also Martha Linden of PA, via Independent Anger after Pope slams ‘unjust’ UK equality laws
Guardian Riazat Butt Your equality laws are unjust, pope tells UK before visit
Monday was revision day 4. Wednesday was day 5 and this was originally supposed to be the final day, but now an additional day has been scheduled for Tuesday 9 February (during General Synod, so not so convenient for bishops, perhaps.)
On Monday, following the previously reported debates on Clause 2, amendments to Clause 3 were also considered. Both the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Winchester took part in this debate.
The Hansard report of that starts here. Monday’s PDF is here.
Then, on day 5, the Hansard report of the debate starts here. The PDF file for the day is over here.
Official news report of Day 5.
The day began by consideration of the mandatory retirement age. The Bishop of Chester spoke on that.
Then, amendments relating to faith schools were considered. That part of the debate starts here.
And there was a debate on amendments relating to whether or not the public equality duty should be extended to cover Religion or Belief. That debates starts here.
The Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Liverpool both spoke in these debates. No votes were taken on anything.
Today’s Church Times has three mentions of the bill.
There is a full news report of Monday’s debate, written by me, Bishops win in Equality Bill fight.
There is a leader, titled Opportunities not yet equal.
And there is comment on the secular press coverage of it in the Press Column (subscriber only until next week) by Andrew Brown.
THE Government’s defeat in the Lords over the Equality Bill was covered on remarkably simple left/right lines: for the right-wing papers, the issue was simply one of the freedom of the Churches from the oppressions of Harriet Harman and the European Union; for the Left, it was just as simply the freedom of gays to be employed…
The Church of England Newspaper devoted its entire front page to the bill. The main news story is reproduced over here.
Catholic Herald Anna Arco Government suffers Equality Bill defeat
More to follow.
Updated Wednesday evening
Telegraph Martin Beckford Gay couples should be allowed to ‘marry’ in church, Government minister says
George Pitcher The Church should bless civil partnerships – but they’re not weddings
At Cif:belief
Andrew Brown Secularism and bigotry and May church press officers be gay?
Savi Hensman Church leaders are wrong on equality
Terry Sanderson Let’s fight the church on equality
At Ekklesia
Lords vote to reduce protection for religious groups’ staff and Government to consider legal status for religious same-sex partnerships
Equality Bill and religious discrimination and Misrepresenting equality… and Christianity
What’s so civil about a civil partnership?
Also (this topic should be reached this afternoon):
Equality and employment in faith schools and Public bodies seek an end to religious discrimination against teachers
CARE Religious Liberty upheld in Lords vote on Equality
CCFON Praise God for the victory in the House of Lords!
Christian Institute Lords defeat Govt over church staff
Catholic News Service Britain’s House of Lords backs church arguments on Equality Bill
Catholic News Agency Religious freedom safeguards preserved by defeat of UK Equality Bill
Updated twice Tuesday morning
All of the amendments proposed by Baroness O’Cathain and others were agreed today.
See here for what each amendment says.
Amendment 98 216-178 agreed by 38 votes
Amendment 99 agreed
Amendment 99A 174-195 disagreed by 21 votes (government amendment)
Amendment 100 177- 172 agreed by 5 votes
More details tomorrow. Eight bishops participated in these votes.
Updates
The Hansard record of the debate on the amendments of Baroness O’Cathain listed above starts here. The PDF version is over here.
Slightly earlier, the amendments of Lord Alli had been debated. That record begins here.
Voting details:
Amendment 98
Amendment 99 - no division
Amendment 99A
Amendment 100
Press reports on all this are sometimes inaccurate on the voting figures. But here they are:
Telegraph Equalities Bill: Church leaders defeat Government over gay staff
BBC Government defeated three times over church gay plan
Reuters Government loses its Equality Bill faith proposals
Daily Mail Lords defeat for Harman over forcing churches to hire gays
Independent Peers defeat Government on church gay ban
BBC Churches fear Equality Bill will conflict with faith
Guardian Afua Hirsch Equality bill: churches and campaigners demand clarity on religion’s exemption
Ekklesia Religion on the agenda as Parliament debates Equality Bill and Equality Bill addresses discrimination against Christians
Daily Mail Harriet Harman’s law ‘will force churches to hire gays’
Telegraph Half of older workers want to keep jobs past retirement age (this is not a story about bishops)
From the blogs:
Cranmer supports the amendments about Civil Partnerships, see Equality Bill: European Commission v the Church of Jesus Christ
The bishops have not expressed any interest in Clause 3, the one which deals with discrimination on the ground of Religion or Belief. Here’s how it reads at present:
Other requirements relating to religion or belief
3. A person (A) with an ethos based on religion or belief does not contravene a provision mentioned in paragraph 1(2) by applying in relation to work a requirement to be of a particular religion or belief if A shows that, having regard to that ethos and to the nature or context of the work—
(a) it is an occupational requirement,
(b) the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and
(c) the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it).
There are five amendments listed.
Amendment 101ZA Baroness Turner of Camden
in para (a) leave out “an” and insert “a genuine”
Amendment 101A Baroness Turner of Camden
at end insert—
“(d) A is not operating as a public authority, on behalf of a public authority or operating in relation to a contract with public authorities.”
Amendment 101B Lord Lester of Herne Hill
at end insert—
“Paragraph 3 does not apply when A is operating—
(a) on behalf of a public authority, and
(b) under the terms of contract between the organisation and the public authority.”
Amendment 101C Baroness Turner of Camden
at end insert—
“The exception under paragraph 3 shall not be used to justify discrimination on any other protected ground.”
Comment is free: belief has today published an article written by me, see
Churches panic over equality bill.
The bishops say in their press release that they are supporting three specific amendments to Schedule 9 Clause 2 of the Equality Bill. Here is the detail of the third one. As before, please remember two things:
- this clause does not deal with discrimination on the grounds of Religion or Belief, that is covered in Clause 3.
- this clause deals with a variety of other requirements as listed in paragraph 4.
Amendment 100 is sponsored by Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, and Baroness Butler-Sloss.
This removes paragraph 8 entirely, thus:
(8) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the employment wholly or mainly involves— (a) leading or assisting in the observance of liturgical or ritualistic practices of the religion, or (b) promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).
There is no such wording in existing legislation.
Before that amendment is considered, Amendment 99A will be moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, on behalf of the government. This amendment inserts the following wording at the end of paragraph 6, leaving paragraph 8 unchanged. However, Baroness Royall has stated that if Amendment 99A is passed, the government will accept Amendment 100.
”( ) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if—
(a) the employment is as a minister of religion, or
(b) the employment is in another post that exists (or, where the post has not previously been filled, that would exist) to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).”
The government says that this is only a clarification of the existing law, and does not constitute any change. It refers to the statement made by Lord Sainsbury of Turville in the House of Lords in 2003:
“When drafting Regulation 7(3), we had in mind a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion.” [Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 779.]
The bishops say “the current limited exemptions for organised religions are balanced and should not be further restricted.”
What they ask is for candidates for “a small number of lay posts”, or more exactly “certain senior lay posts that involve promoting and representing the religion” to be required “to demonstrate an ability to live a life consistent with the ethos of the religion”.
There are two other amendments being proposed to Clause 2.
In Amendment 97E Lord Alli proposes to delete paragraph (4f) thus
(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.
In Amendment 100A Baroness Turner of Camden proposes to insert three words in paragraph 8, thus:
-(8) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the purpose of the employment wholly or mainly involves etc.
The bishops say in their press release that they are supporting three specific amendments to Schedule 9 Clause 2 of the Equality Bill. Here is the detail of the first two. Please remember two things:
- this clause does not deal with discrimination on the grounds of Religion or Belief, that is covered in Clause 3.
- this clause deals with a variety of other requirements as listed in paragraph 4.
Amendments 98 and 99 are sponsored by Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, and Baroness Butler-Sloss.
These amendments have the following effect:
(5) The application of a requirement engages the compliance principle if the
application is a proportionate means of complyingrequirement is applied so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion.(6) The application of a requirement engages the non-conflict principle if, because of the nature or context of the employment, the
application is a proportionate means of avoiding conflictrequirement is applied so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers.
The wording that they seek to delete was not in Clause 7 of the 2003 Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, nor was it in the The Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 amending Clause 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, both of which are to be replaced by this Schedule.
The proportionality principle is however a requirement of the European Employment Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000.
Article 4
Occupational requirements
1. Notwithstanding Article 2(1) and (2), Member States may provide that a difference of treatment which is based on a characteristic related to any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate.
2. Member States may maintain national legislation in force at the date of adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation incorporating national practices existing at the date of adoption of this Directive pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person’s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person’s religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos. This difference of treatment shall be implemented taking account of Member States’ constitutional provisions and principles, as well as the general principles of Community law, and should not justify discrimination on another ground.
Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with, this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos.
Or in other words, the Directive contains a strict test which must be satisfied if a difference of treatment is to be considered non-discriminatory: there must be a genuine and determining occupational requirement, the objective must be legitimate and the requirement proportionate. No elements of this test appear in Regulation 7(3).
Church of England press release received at 11 am Saturday
Equality Bill: ‘Churches must not face further restrictions’
23 January 2010
A statement issued on behalf of the Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter and Chair of the Churches Legislation Advisory Service and the Rt Revd Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester, as bishops who have taken a keen interest in the progression of the Bill:
“This Monday, as Peers meet to consider the Government’s Equality Bill, they will be asked to vote on an issue of great importance to Christians and all people of faith. At stake is how we, as a liberal democracy based on Christian values, strike the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of different groups to be protected from harassment and unfair discrimination and the rights of churches and religious organisations to appoint and employ people consistently with their guiding doctrine and ethos.
“The Christian Churches, alongside many other faiths, support the Equality Bill’s wider aims in promoting fairness in society and improving redress for those who have suffered unjust treatment.
“However, unless the present drafting of the Bill is changed, churches and other faiths will find themselves more vulnerable to legal challenge than under the current law. When regulations on employment discrimination were passed as recently as 2003, churches and other faiths were granted certain limited exemptions by parliament to be used when recruiting ministers of religion or others to a small number of lay posts. These enabled religious organisations to apply requirements that candidates for certain senior lay posts that involve promoting and representing the religion are able to demonstrate an ability to live a life consistent with the ethos of the religion, as well as sharing the faith.
“The government have said that they share our view - that the current limited exemptions for organised religions are balanced and should not be further restricted. Yet they are proposing to modify them. They have produced no convincing case for change. They have now offered to amend their original proposals in the Bill but instead of reverting to the status quo have produced words which will still create difficulties for churches and religious groups. This despite our raising the problem many months ago and offering various ways of resolving the issue.
“We must conclude therefore that the only way to maintain the status quo in exemptions for religious organisations is for Peers to support amendments 98, 99 and 100 on Monday, tabled by Baroness O’Cathain and the Bishop of Winchester, over and above the Governnment’s compromise amendment 99A.”
There are further reports about this today:
In the Church Times there is a report by me, subscriber-only until next Friday, headlined Change fails to silence critics. A longer account by me is below.
In the Catholic Herald Simon Caldwell has a report headlined Equality Bill still a threat, say bishops.
On the other hand, the National Secular Society has a press release, NSS battles to minimise religious opt outs in Equality Bill.
A new Marshalled List of Amendments has been published. I will review the changes in a later post.
What follows is my full account of events of the past week.
The Government’s efforts to clarify the exemption for churches in the Equality Bill have not been welcomed by either the Archbishops’ Council or the Roman Catholic bishops conference. The Bill is due to complete its Committee stage in the House of Lords next week.
The new amendment wording is:
—————————————————————-
Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if—
(a) the employment is as a minister of religion, or
(b) the employment is in another post that exists (or, where the post has not previously been filled, that would exist) to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).
——————————————————————-
When the amendment text was published last Thursday, a spokesman for the Archbishops’ Council said “The Government amendment reflects a recognition that the concerns expressed all along by the churches have been well founded. But it still falls short of what we have been arguing for and leaves too much for the courts and tribunals to interpret. That is why we shall continue to support the deletion of clause 2 (8) as the surest way of preserving the status quo for churches and other faiths.”
Asked to clarify this on Monday, Mr William Fittall, Secretary-General of the Archbishops’ Council, confirmed that the church would prefer that the existing wording should simply be deleted. Consultations had been held with Government since last June, but the new amendment was not satisfactory.
On Friday, Mr Richard Kornicki of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales had said “The Government amendment goes some way to meeting our needs - particularly in putting the position of Ministers of religion beyond doubt, and identifying ‘promote’, ‘represent’ or ‘explain the doctrine’ as functions to be covered. However, the phrase ‘exists to’ might, according to legal advice, be interpreted narrowly by courts as meaning the whole purpose, which would get us straight back into the problems caused by the ‘wholly or mainly’ formulation”. He believed that deletion was “the only sure way of guaranteeing that the Bill neither extends nor narrows the scope of the current legal provision.”
A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office insisted on Tuesday that the new definition made no change at all in the current law. He pointed out that the wording reflected very closely what Lord Sainsbury had said in the House of Lords in June 2003 and putting this wording on the face of the bill would give greater clarity. Speaking for the Government at that time, Lord Sainsbury had said: “When drafting Regulation 7(3), we had in mind a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion.”
These amendments to Schedule 9 Clause 2 of the Bill will be debated in the House of Lords next Monday.
Another amendment proposed by the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, Baroness Butler-Sloss, and others, would remove the word “proportionate” from the clause. This word, which did not appear in the corresponding 2003 regulations, was included by the Government to clarify the requirement of the European Equal Treatment Directive 2000 for a proportionality test to apply. The recent “reasoned opinion” sent to the UK government by the European Commission argues that “exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive”.
An attempt will also be made to amend Clause 3 of Schedule 9, which deals with employment discrimination on grounds of Religion or Belief. This exemption applies to any employer “with an ethos based on religion or belief”. The amendments, proposed by Lord Lester and by Baroness Turner of Camden, seek to remove this freedom when an employer is “operating on behalf of a public authority”.
The Government has accepted the need for two amendments, proposed by the Bishop of Winchester and by Baroness Gould of Potter Newton, concerning the religious marriage of somebody who has undergone gender reassignment. These ensure that clergy of any denomination with conscientious objections will, as now, not be obliged to perform such marriages. The House of Lords approved them on Tuesday.
Back on the 13 January, the Bishop of Winchester also spoke in the debate last Tuesday about the issue of harassment. This was in the context of an amendment dealing with Clause 14: Combined discrimination: dual characteristics. The Bishop’s remarks can be found here.
Ruth Gledhill blogged about this yesterday, in Bishop of Winchester: Equality Bill ‘irrational and ignorant’. I added a comment there as follows:
The Bishop of Winchester’s remarks about harassment are interesting, and - as Lord Lester said - this topic will come up in its own right later, but the issue is entirely separate from the Schedule 9 clauses that are upsetting CARE, Christian Institute, and CCFON so mightily, and in my opinion unjustifiably.
It is incorrect to suggest that the bishop described the Equality Bill per se as “irrational and ignorant”.
When he said “It is an irrational and ignorant way of behaving by authorities and others” he was not referring to the wording of the bill, but to the behaviours by local authorities that he had enumerated in the previous paragraph. He said that he thought the proposed wording of the bill “may exacerbate that set of problems”.
It is a rare occasion indeed when I defend the Bishop of Winchester…
There has been relatively little coverage of the religion aspects of this in the media until recently. A few items:
Telegraph Martin Beckford today has Bishop of Winchester warns Christians may have to give up public sector jobs because of secular agenda and last week had Equality Bill ‘dangerously’ trying to force religious belief behind closed doors, bishops warn.
The Sunday Telegraph also had a report by Patrick Hennessy headlined Catholic ban on women priests ‘illegal under Harriet Harman equality bill’ which earned a mention in the Church Times press column by Andrew Brown thus:
Full marks to CARE, the Evangelical pressure group, for getting the most completely bogus story of the week into The Sunday Telegraph, via its political editor, who solemnly informed the readers that Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill would force the Roman Catholic Church to abandon an all-male priesthood.
The Church of England Newspaper last week had UK promises amendments to controversial Equality Bill. I had a report in the Church Times last week which is subscriber-only until tomorrow, Move to erase doubts over Equality Bill and which takes a rather different view.
Today, the Daily Mail has Video urging protest against Equality Bill that ‘infringes Christian freedom’ to be screened in churches.
Press releases from conservative organisations:
On the other hand:
The Hansard record of day three can be found here as a PDF, or starts here in html.
The official news report of the day is here.
There was an interesting debate on an amendment proposed by Lord Alton of Liverpool. This starts here.
What the Bishop of Winchester had to say can be found here.
The article in The Times yesterday by Shami Chakrabarti referred to in the debate, can be found here.
The Bishop of Winchester’s amendment dealing with Gender Reassignment and the Marriage Act was accepted without any difficulty by the Government. The debate about that starts here (the Bishop of Southwark stood in as the Bishop of Winchester had to leave before this was reached).
A further exchange of religious interest occurred starting here. The topic being discussed was the content of television programmes. The Archbishop of York participated in this debate.
The amendments to Schedule 9 will now certainly be discussed on Monday afternoon. There has been a change to the texts of Amendments 98 and 99. New wording is here. The old wording was in both cases simply: leave out “proportionate”. The wording was not in the 2003 SO Regulations, but was put into the Equality Bill in order to make plain on the face of the bill the proportionality requirement of the underlying European Employment Equality Directive 2000.
Updated
The Government has proposed a new definition of when “Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion”.
Here it is:
Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if—
(a) the employment is as a minister of religion, or
(b) the employment is in another post that exists (or, where the post has not previously been filled, that would exist) to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).
This would replace the current wording found in Schedule 9, Paragraph 2(8).
Update
In order to evaluate this, it may be helpful to recall that this clause is designed to cover a variety of issues, not only sexual orientation.
(a) a requirement to be of a particular sex;
(b) a requirement not to be a transsexual person;
(c) a requirement not to be married or a civil partner;
(d) a requirement not to be married to, or the civil partner of, a person who has a living former spouse or civil partner;
(e) a requirement relating to circumstances in which a marriage or civil partnership came to an end;
(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.
The House of Lords continued its examination of the Equality Bill yesterday. Amendments discussed covered clauses 10 to 29. Here is the news page with links.
The Hansard record can be found starting here, or the PDF file is over here.
Two of the amendments I had previously listed as interesting were debated.
Amendment 20 (Baroness Varsi and Baroness Morris) which would remove the word “philosophical” from the definition of “belief”, was debated, follow that from here.
At the end of the evening, Lord MacKay of Clashfern proposed Amendment 57A:
“Conscientious objection
Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of requiring a person (A) to provide a good or service to a person (B) when doing so has the effect of making A complicit with an action to which A has a genuine conscientious objection.”
Read the debate on that from here.
Also, yesterday there was a change in the list of peers sponsoring the amendment to delete Sch 9 Clause 2 Para 8. Baroness Varsi’s name was removed, and was replaced by Baroness Butler-Sloss. Lady Butler-Sloss also added her name to those sponsoring the amendment to delete the word “proportionate” in in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 9 clause 2.
See earlier article here which includes a list of some of the amendments of interest.
Yesterday’s committee hearings dealt with Clauses 1 to 9. No amendments were agreed. The Hansard record begins here. The Parliament website has this news report with links.
Amendments considered included one from the Bishop of Chester on gender reassignment. (The Bishop of Chichester spoke on his behalf.)
The latest (Tuesday morning) list of the remaining marshalled amendments (excludes those considered yesterday) can be found here. Committee hearings resume on Wednesday.
The Bishop of Winchester’s amendment relating to marriages and gender reassignment discrimination has now reappeared in much shorter form then before:
58A* Page 143, line 2, at end insert—
GENDER REASSIGNMENT
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in reliance on section 5B of the Marriage Act 1949 (solemnisation of marriages involving person of acquired gender).”
Baroness Noakes and Baroness Neuberger have added their names to Lord Alli’s amendment relating to the venues for civil partnerships.
Meanwhile in the House of Commons, two questions were asked relating to the EU “reasoned opinion”.
Stewart Jackson (- Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)
To ask the Minister for Women and Equality if she will place in the Library a copy of the reasoned opinion of the European Commission on the compliance of the UK’s equality legislation with the EU Equal Treatment Directive.
Maria Eagle (Minister of State (also in the Government Equalities Office), Ministry of Justice; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)
The understanding between the European Commission and member states is that infraction correspondence remains confidential. The Commission publishes the fact that a Reasoned Opinion has been sent, but not the letter itself. The Government will therefore not be placing a copy of this Reasoned Opinion in the Library.
Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)
To ask the Minister for Women and Equality what recent discussions she has had with the European Commission on UK compliance with EU anti-discrimination legislation; and if she will make a statement.
Maria Eagle (Minister of State (also in the Government Equalities Office), Ministry of Justice; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)
The European Commission sent two reasoned opinions to the UK Government on 20 November 2009 which questioned the compliance of our domestic legislation with two European Directives in certain respects. We are studying these reasoned opinions carefully and will reply to the Commission towards the end of January.
Amended again Monday afternoon
My report in last week’s Church Times on the December debate in the House of Lords, can be now be read at Religion is more than this, say peers.
The consideration of the Equality Bill will resume next week, when the House of Lords considers the bill in Committee. The following five dates have been allocated: Monday 11 Jan, Wednesday 13 Jan, Tuesday 19 Jan, Monday 25 Jan, Wednesday 27 January.
Numerous amendments have been proposed, see the new marshalled list of amendments to be moved in committee, starting here.
Monday And now this revised marshalled list starting here.
The Conservative party spokesperson, Baroness Varsi, together with Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, and the Bishop of Winchester have put down an amendment to strike out the whole of the new definition of the purposes of organised religion. Amendment 100. The latter three have also put down an amendment to remove the word “proportionate” in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 9 clause 2. Amendments 98, 99
Baroness Varsi and Baroness Morris have also put down an amendment which would remove the word “philosophical” from the definition of “belief”. Amendment 20
The Bishop of Winchester had put down an amendment dealing with religious marriages and gender reassignment discrimination. This is not in the current list because it has been withdrawn for redrafting.I am told it will be resubmitted shortly.
The Bishop of Chester has put down an amendment to insert the words “under medical supervision” into the definition of gender reassignment. Amendment 10
Baroness Turner of Camden has put down amendments to ensure that the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 will have to be read in light of Schedule 9 (3). Amendments 124, 125 and 137
She has also put down amendments:
- to modify paragraph 8 so that it reads (addition in bold):
Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the purpose of the employment wholly or mainly involves—
Amendment 100
- to qualify Clause 3 of Schedule 9 (Other requirements relating to religion or belief) to add:
(d) A is not operating as a public authority, on behalf of a public authority or operating in relation to a contract with public authorities.”
Amendment 101A
Lord Alli has put down amendments:
- to allow civil partnerships to take place on religious premises Amendment 119A
- to delete the clause in Schedule 9 paragraph 2(4) which reads “(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.” i.e. the transposition of the 2003 SO Regulations paragraph 7(3). Amendment 97E
Lord MacKay of Clashfern has put down this amendment:
“Conscientious objection
Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of requiring a person (A) to provide a good or service to a person (B) when doing so has the effect of making A complicit with an action to which A has a genuine conscientious objection.”
Amendment 57A
Michael Foster MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Equalities has today announced that the Government will propose an amendment:
Contrary to some reports over the weekend, the Equality Bill will still allow churches to hire only male clergy and will let faith-based charities continue to recruit people of the same faith where this is a requirement of the job, such as care staff who may also be asked to pray with the people they look after. We have been absolutely clear on this throughout the Bill’s passage, but as there has been some misunderstanding around our intentions we will amend the Bill to make this clear beyond doubt.
The following article from the 21 November edition of The Tablet is reproduced by kind permission of the Editor.
Swords crossed over a crucifix by Aidan O’Neill
The Italian Government is seeking to appeal against a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that could lead to the removal of crucifixes from state school classrooms. A leading human-rights lawyer looks at a case that goes to the heart arguments about the relationship between Church and State.
In the last few years the European Court has, in general, been sympathetic to various attempts to regulate what, in their particular national contexts, the authorities have considered to be excessive individual religious displays. Thus the Court upheld the human rights compatibility of France’s ban on pupils dressing in a manner that made their religious affiliation immediately identifiable. It also upheld a law in Turkey barring from university lectures and tutorials students sporting beards and women wearing Islamic headscarves. In these two decisions the Court confirmed that the French and Turkish principle of laïcité or secularism, with its insistence on the strict separation between Church (or mosque) and State, was consistent with the democratic values of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).
In its 3 November 2009 decision in Lautsi v. Italy, however, the European Court appears to have gone significantly beyond this line of case law. The court has now determined that the requirement in Italian law – in place since the 1920s Fascist government under Mussolini – that crucifixes be hung on the walls of the classrooms of state-run schools (originally, alongside a portrait of the king) was incompatible with human rights. The court ruled that such display violated the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions, and the right of their children to believe or not to believe.
The Italian Government argued, somewhat disingenuously, that in context, crucifixes in classrooms need not be understood in religious terms. Instead, the cross could properly be imagined as representing a whole host of ethical values – among them non-violence, equality and dignity, justice, love of neighbour, forgiveness of enemies, freedom of choice, and separation of religion and State – upon which contemporary European democracies were founded. As a matter of history, the humanist values of the Enlightenment were said to have their roots in, or be in reaction against, Christianity. The classroom display of the crucifix could be seen as a reminder of this. The cross in the Italian classroom could therefore be stripped of any specific religious significance or meaning; it could be regarded as nothing more than a cultural relic; or, indeed, it could simply be ignored.
The third party intervener, the Greek Helsinki Monitor human rights organisation, described these arguments as offensive to the Church and to believers. The cross could only be seen as a symbol of religious faith, of a belief in the truth of Christianity. The Court agreed that the primary meaning of the crucifix was as a religious symbol, readily associated with Catholicism. But it considered that the legal requirement to display a crucifix in the classroom could be justified neither on historical nor cultural grounds, nor on the basis of the views of the majority of parents. The court declared that in the context of the provision of public education the state was bound to a “confessional neutrality” and that such state education should be aimed at fostering “educational pluralism” and encouraging “critical thought” among its pupils.
Article 9 of the European Convention proclaims the absolute right of everyone to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs is also said to be a fundamental right, though one which may be limited by law. Such limitation must be shown to be “necessary in a democratic society”.
The right to education is set out in Article 2 First Protocol ECHR. This provides that parents have the right to ensure the education and teaching of their children “in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”. Where the state assumes a role in relation to education and teaching, it must respect that right of the parents.
However, in the Lautsi v. Italy ruling, the European Court would appear to be committing itself to the claim that not only is a strict separation of Church and State permitted under the European Convention but it is actually required by it. Such a claim can certainly not be justified by the plain text of the Convention. It appears to owe more to United States Supreme Court jurisprudence on the separation of Church and State. But this American case law is based on the text of its Constitution’s First Amendment requirement that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”.
This clause has resulted in a seemingly endless line of court cases on such issues as whether Nativity scenes, or the text of the Ten Commandments, can lawfully be displayed on state-owned property; or whether prayers can be said, or oaths of allegiance recited, in public schools.
To apply such an American separationist analysis within a European context simply does not do justice to the wholly different understandings of the proper relationship between religion and the State which have historically existed among the countries of Europe; where, indeed, religious establishment of forms of Christianity – whether Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic – was the traditional norm.
Under Article 43 ECHR, a party has three months from the date of a judgment to request that it be reheard on appeal before the Grand Chamber of the Court with its 17 judges. To be successfully referred to the Grand Chamber the case must be found by the court to raise serious question of interpretation of the Convention or some other issue of general importance.
The questions raised in Lautsi clearly highlight tensions within the European Court itself. In June 2007, in Folgerø v. Norway, the Grand Chamber split nine to eight on the question of whether a group of avowed humanist parents should be able to demand the complete exemption of their children from a state-sanctioned school course on Christianity, religion and philosophy. The dissenting eight-strong minority considered that it was precisely the increasing pluralist nature of Norwegian society that justified the Norwegian state in making such provision, which emphasised the historical importance of Christianity in Norway. The state had a duty to ensure mutual tolerance between differing groups in society and, in the minority’s view, providing for a common state education in religion and ethics, which did not seek to proselytise and convert but to inform, was a proper means to that end.
It is clear that we have not heard the last word on these issues.
■ Aidan O’Neill QC is a Scottish advocate, based in Edinburgh, and a barrister member of Matrix Chambers in London.
Additional material added
I wrote earlier about the attacks being made upon this bill. Time now to comment on some of them.
First of all, there were two reports, in the Catholic Herald and in the Telegraph, which tried to put words into the mouth of Michael Foster MP, the Minister of State at the Government Equalities Office.
These were published under strong headlines: Get ready to be sued, Minister tells Christians and Minister predicts legal battles between churches and atheists over Equality Bill were used. In one article it was claimed that
[Foster] admitted that the legislation would open the floodgates to a tide of sexual and religious discrimination cases.
The other version was only slightly less sensational:
[Foster] admitted that the controversial legislation could trigger the launch of religious and sexual discrimination cases against Christian denominations.
I was present at this press conference, the day after the Lords First Reading, and I know that he didn’t say either of those things. The purpose of the conference, limited to the religious press, was to encourage churches to support the bill.
Following a lengthy discussion with all the journalists present about the new definition of the “purposes of an organised religion” in Schedule 9, Clause 2, Paragraph 8, he showed no inclination at all to accept any modification to the existing wording – several suggestions for that were made. He was then asked if he thought it likely that, if the bill passed with the current wording, there would be a challenge to it in the courts.
Here’s what he actually said in reply:
“Both sides will want to be lining up, no doubt. Government is used to the fact that its legislation will be challenged and if we could find the holy grail of avoiding challenge outside of an authoritarian state which says ‘you can’t’, we would. But I think that people feel strongly about these issues. We can’t do anything about that and neither would we want to.”
After which, as reported by the Telegraph, he added:
“I would like to see the churches being more bold. I would like to see the faith groups stand up and be counted for what they think and to challenge secularism, if that’s what they want to challenge. The secularists should have the right to challenge the Church and if the Church’s argument is good enough – which I believe it is – then the Church should win through.”
The Catholic Herald went on to say:
He declined to offer a solution to how conflicting rights of religious freedom of employers and sexual expression of employees, for instance, could be resolved.
Nor did he deny claims made by the Catholic bishops that the Bill would allow non-Christians who work in church premises to sue for victimisation if they were offended by crucifixes on walls. Instead, he said he thought such a scenario “unlikely”, even though an atheist last month successfully sued the Italian government over its policy of having crucifixes in schools.
But in the paper handout issued at the meeting, it says this about the crucifixes issue:
MYTH: Religious organisations that display holy images in the workplace are vulnerable under the Equality Bill.
RESPONSE: Religious organisations are free to display holy images. Some people have suggested that the Equality Bill willl mean that workers will be able to sue religious organisations for harassment because they are offended by religious images ih the workplace. This is just mischief-making.
An example often used is that of a cleaner working in a care home who is offended by crucifixes on the walls - it is completely untrue to suggest that the care home would be required by the Bill to take them down. The cleaner should expect to see these images in a religious organisation.
Additional information
This suggestion first appeared in the briefing on the bill issued last June by the RC Bishops, which said this:
Harassment
9. Harassment is defined as ‘unwanted conduct … with the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment’ (clause 24). The burden of proof for this highly subjective definition is reversed in legal proceedings.
10. In relation to religion or belief, the provision is only applicable to employment (clause 37). The practical consequences of this are that a Catholic care home, for example, may have crucifixes and holy pictures on the walls which reflect and support the beliefs of the residents. A cleaner may be an atheist or of very different religious beliefs. Nonetheless if a cleaner found the crucifixes offensive there would be no defence in law against a charge of harassment. To avoid this provision having serious unintended consequences, a test of ‘reasonableness’ is essential.
There have been some rather odd articles about this bill recently.
Telegraph Simon Caldwell and Martin Beckford Minister predicts legal battles between churches and atheists over Equality Bill and later George Pitcher Equality legislation means our very right to believe is under fire
Catholic Herald Simon Caldwell Get ready to be sued, Minister tells Christians
And various repeats in the blogosphere, of which this is perhaps the most extreme headline: The Equality Bill: Will A New Law Essentially Outlaw Evangelical Christianity And Roman Catholicism In The U.K.?
Leading to items from the lobbying organisations:
Christian Institute MP: Equality Bill will lead to legal action against churches and Equality Bill could drive faith from ‘public sphere’
Christian Concern for our Nation Act to protect employment freedom for Churches
Much of this criticism is unjustified by the facts (I was present at the press briefing with Michael Foster), and I will write more about this soon.
Meanwhile, the BBC has published a helpful reminder of the main objectives of the bill: What the new Equality Bill means for employers
You can read the entire debate here at Hansard and continued here, or at TheyWorkForYou it starts here, and then continues here (the debate was interrupted for a discussion of the Defence Statement).
The following individual speeches are interesting:
Archbishop of York and also this.
Bishop of Chester, and also this.
Lord Alli
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen (questions about women bishops)
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, summing up the debate for the government.
More about this later.
Updated Thursday morning
The Court of Appeals (Civil Division) has today dismissed the appeal of Lilian Ladele from the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision of December 2008, which found in favour of the London Borough of Islington.
The full text of today’s judgment can be found here. A printable version here is in .rtf format.
Initial press reports:
Press Association Registrar loses discrimination case
Reuters Christian registrar loses gay wedding appeal
Islington Tribune Registrar who refused to carry out civil partnership ceremonies loses appeal
Ekklesia Partnerships registrar loses case in Court of Appeal
BBC Christian registrar loses same-sex partnership case
Updates
Press Association Pressure groups welcome same-sex discrimination ruling
Symon Hill Cif belief A judgment Christians should celebrate
Christian Institute Court rejects appeal in Christian registrar case
Christian Concern for our Nation Court of Appeal rules against Christian Registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships
The Evangelical Alliance Ireland writes:
Evangelical Christians and the Civil Partnership Bill 2009
The Irish Government has published a Bill that will establish Civil Partnerships for same sex couples to give them rights, obligations and protections once they are registered with the state. Many of the rights are similar to those currently offered to married couples under Irish Law. In response to this Evangelical Alliance Ireland has just produced a four page paper. Read this document here. [PDF]
The government proposals can be found here. Or in more easily digested form here.
A recent Associated Press report: Irish lawmakers open debate on gay rights bill.
The Equality Bill that was passed in the House of Commons recently is now before the House of Lords. The first debate, i.e the Second Reading, will occur on Tuesday 15 December, starting soon after 2.30 pm.
Earlier reports of the Commons debate can be found here.
My own report is in today’s Church Times at Attempt to remove ‘religion’ clause in Equality Bill fails. That is currently available only to subscribers, but the full text is below the fold.
Meanwhile, the RC bishops have issued a briefing, which has been reported in a somewhat alarming tone in several places:
Catholic Herald Equality Bill threatens integrity of the priesthood, bishops tell Harman by Simon Caldwell
Catholic News Service English, Welsh bishops say Equality Bill redefines who can be priest also by Simon Caldwell
There is also a less sensational report by Isabel de Bertadano in the Tablet but that too is subscription-only.
More on this topic to follow.
Church Times 11 December report
Attempt to remove ‘religion’ clause in Equality Bill fails
by Simon Sarmiento
AN ATTEMPT to remove a clause in the Equality Bill defining the “purposes of organised religion” was defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday of last week. The Church of England had raised objections to the wording (below) when it first appeared (News, 20 November).
The Bill received its Third Reading, when only eight MPs voted against, and it now passes to the House of Lords. A Second Reading debate there is scheduled for next Tuesday.
The amendment, proposed by David Drew, MP for Stroud (Labour), sought to delete the new definition entirely. Speaking in support of Mr Drew, Mark Harper, MP for the Forest of Dean (Conservative), argued that the phrase “wholly or mainly” was too narrow. Many full-time ordained Christian ministers would be excluded, since only a small proportion of their time was spent leading worship or teaching doctrine.
When voted upon, the amendment was defeated by 170 votes to 314.
On 26 November, the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds, the Rt Revd John Packer, had also spoken about this clause during the debate in the House of Lords on the Queen’s Speech. He said: “I cannot imagine that any Christian would recognise their faith in those descriptions. . . In practice, especially in smaller churches or faith groups, many employees play a multi-tasked role which could fall foul of the requirement that their employment wholly or mainly involve leading worship.”
During the Commons debate, several MPs referred to a “reasoned opinion” that the European Commission had issued to the UK government on 20 November. The Commission stated that the exceptions in current UK law to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than permitted by the EU directive.
The EU Commissioner for Equal Opportunities, Vladimír Špidla, said: “We call on the UK Government to make the necessary changes to its anti-discrimination legislation as soon as possible so as to fully comply with the EU rules. In this context, we welcome the proposed Equality Bill, and hope that it will come into force quickly.”
The Government has not yet released the full text of the opinion, but Mr Harper, who had obtained a copy from Brussels, told the Commons that it said: “The UK Government has informed the Commission that the new Equality Bill currently under discussion before the UK Parliament will amend this aspect of the law, and bring UK law into line with the Directive.”
Two other amendments sought to permit religious care-homes for the elderly and religious adoption agencies to restrict their services on the grounds of sexual orientation. They were not adopted.
During the House of Lords debate, an amendment is expected to be tabled to allow religious buildings to be used to hold civil partnership ceremonies. Ben Summerskill of Stonewall, a gay-rights group, said: “We are very clear that this is an issue of religious freedom, and if faiths want to celebrate the ceremonies of two men or two women, it’s not for someone else to say you can’t do that.”
(8) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the employment wholly or mainly involves —
(a) leading or assisting in the observation of liturgical or ritualistic practices of the religion,
or
(b) promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).
The UK Equality Bill passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons on Wednesday, and has now moved to the House of Lords, where the Second Reading is scheduled for 15 December.
The Hansard record of the debate on Wednesday starts here, or TheyWorkForYou has it in a rather different format here. Only 8 members voted against the bill at Third Reading.
An amendment to delete entirely Schedule 9, Clause 2, Paragraph 8, was proposed by David Drew Labour MP for Stroud, who made this speech in support of it. But when put to the vote it was defeated Ayes 170, Noes 314.
The debate on the religious exemptions and related topics starts at this point.
There has been some comment about the bill on blogs. For example Cranmer has written EU forces Government to put gay equality over Christian conscience and also European Commission ‘lobbied Parliament’ to pass Equality Bill which refers to the debate on Wednesday.
The full text of the EU Reasoned Opinion has not been published by the Government, but the Conservatives have obtained a copy from Brussels (they said) so it is surely only a short matter of time before it is available. Meanwhile, according to Mark Harper Conservative MP for the Forest of Dean it does say this:
“The UK Government has informed the Commission that the new Equality Bill currently under discussion before the UK Parliament will amend this aspect of the law and bring UK law into line with the Directive.”
Earlier in the House of Lords, the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds had used the occasion of the Queen’s Speech to speak there about the Equality Bill. You can read his speech in full here.
Updated
An announcement from the Cutting Edge Consortium:
Cutting Edge Consortium marks its launch by inviting you to continue the debates of the Faith, Homophobia, Transphobia & Human Rights Conferences 2007 & 2009
“EQUALITY BILL: OPT IN vs OPT OUT”
An open meeting to discuss religious exemptions to the legislation on sexuality and gender identity in the Equality Bill
Hosted by Clare Short MP, speakers will include:
- Sarah Bourke (Tooks Chambers)
- Andrew Copson (British Humanist Association)
- Maleiha Malik (Muslim Women’s Network)
- Michael Rubenstein (Equal Opportunities Review)
Date/Time: 1900-2100, Tuesday 24th November
Venue: Committee Room 5, House of Commons
The Cutting Edge Consortium includes the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement, Interfaith Alliance UK, British Humanist Association, Muslim Education Centre Oxford, Liberal Judaism, Trades Union Congress, and A:Gender, Centre for the Study of Christianity & Sexuality, Ekklesia, Inclusive Church, LGBT Consortium of Voluntary & Community Organisations.
Contact email: cuttingedgeconsortium1@googlemail.com
Ekklesia has a report of the meeting, see Religious and secular groups unite to launch anti-discrimination coalition.
Jamie Doward reports in today’s Observer:
The government is being forced by the European commission to rip up controversial exemptions that allow church bodies to refuse to employ homosexual staff.
It has emerged that the commission wrote to the government last week raising concerns that the UK had incorrectly implemented an EU directive prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of a person’s sexual orientation.
The ruling follows a complaint from the National Secular Society, which argued that the opt-outs went further than was permitted under the directive and had created “illegal discrimination against homosexuals”.
The commission agreed. A “reasoned opinion” by its lawyers informs the government that its “exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive”.
The highly unusual move means that the government now has no choice but to redraft anti-discrimination laws, which is likely to prompt a furore among church groups.
Read Brussels says churches must lift ban on employing homosexuals.
According to an EU press release, found via eumonitor.net:
Employment equality rules: reasoned opinion to the UK; case closed for Slovakia
The European Commission has today sent a reasoned opinion to the United Kingdom for incorrectly implementing EU rules prohibiting discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78/EC, see also MEMO/08/69 ). It has also decided to close infringement proceedings concerning the same Directive against Slovakia as their national legislation has been brought into line with EU requirements.
“Tackling all forms of discrimination – especially at work – has been a priority for this Commission and for me personally. Our legal action has led to better protection against discrimination in workplaces across the EU,” said Equal Opportunities Commissioner Vladimír Špidla. “We call on the UK Government to make the necessary changes to its anti-discrimination legislation as soon as possible so as to fully comply with the EU rules. In this context, we welcome the proposed Equality Bill and hope that it will come into force quickly,” he added.
In the reasoned opinion sent to the United Kingdom, the Commission pointed out that:
- there is no clear ban on ‘instruction to discriminate’ in national law and no clear appeals procedure in the case of disabled people;
- exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive.
There’s a response to this news item at Cranmer EU forces Government to put gay equality over Christian conscience.
Today’s Church Times carries a report, written by me, about the CofE and the Equality Bill.
See Committee rejects C of E proposal on Equality Bill.
THE parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) disagreed strongly with the Archbishops’ Council over a proposal to modify the Equality Bill, it emerged this week. The Bill awaits the Report stage before its Third Reading in the House of Commons…
Links to the various documents mentioned can all be found at this earlier TA article JCHR report on Equality Bill.
Those coming late to the Equality Bill can catch up by reading the House of Commons Library Research Paper, Equality Bill Committee Stage Report, just published, and available here as a PDF file. This summarises all the activity of recent months, and explains what amendments have, and have not, been made to the bill as originally published.
Updated
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its report Legislative Scrutiny: Equality Bill.
The web version of this report starts here. A PDF version is also available from here.
The portions of the report relating to Religion are interesting.
Go here for the section headed EMPLOYMENT BY ORGANISATIONS BASED UPON RELIGION OR BELIEF. This starts at paragraph 164, and should be read in full. The evidence given to another committee by the CofE and Roman Catholic Church representatives is considered. Evidence given to this committee by the Church of England can be found starting at page Ev 114 of the PDF. That is page 250 of 344! A third memorandum from the Board of Education and the National Society is at page Ev 190 (322 of the PDF).
Update
There are direct links to each of the Church of England memoranda:
The JCHR conclusions include these paragraphs:
174. We welcome the clarification in Schedule 9(2) and 9(3) of the circumstances in which occupational requirements linked to a religious belief or ethos can be imposed by faith-based organisations and organised religious groups. We accept that some limitations on non-discrimination on grounds of religion or belief may be justified and appropriate in relation to religious organisations and that the exemption in Schedule 9(2) fulfils that role. We also consider that in general the provisions of Schedule 9(2) and 9(3) strike the correct balance between the right to equality and non-discrimination and the rights to freedom of religion or belief and association, especially if interpreted in line with the approach set out in Amicus v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which emphasised the need for such exceptions to the general prohibition on direct discrimination to be “construed strictly” on the basis that they are “a derogation from the principle of equal treatment”.
175. We consider that substantial grounds exist for doubting whether the “religious ethos” exception provided for in Schedule 9(3) permits organisations with a religious ethos to impose wide-ranging requirements on employees to adhere to religious doctrine in their lifestyles and personal relationships, by for example requiring employees to manifest their religious beliefs by refraining from homosexual acts. We agree with the Government that it is “very difficult to see how in practice beliefs in lifestyles or personal relationships could constitute a religious belief which is a requirement for a job, other than ministers of religion” (which is covered by a different exception). This should put beyond doubt the position that the exemption in Schedule 9(3) cannot be used to discriminate on the basis of sexual conduct linked to sexual orientation. We support this view and recommend that this be made clear in the Bill.
176. We are concerned about the status of employees of organisations delivering public services who find themselves as employees of organisations with a religious ethos who have been contracted to provide the public service. They have a right not to be subjected to religious discrimination on the basis of the ethos of the contracting organisation if they are otherwise performing their job satisfactorily. We are concerned that the widespread use of the “religious ethos” exception set out in Schedule 9(3) by organisations based on a particular religion or belief who are contracted to deliver services on behalf of public authorities could result in public functions being discharged by organisations in receipt of public funds who are nevertheless perceived to discriminate on the basis of religion or belief.
For the background to this, see previous posts:
Waddington amendment upheld in Lords July 2009
bishops oppose repeal of Waddington amendment May 2009
Anglican and Roman church bodies comment jointly November 2007
incitement extension proposed October 2007
Today, the UK government finally accepted, with reluctance, the amendment supported repeatedly, by the House of Lords and rejected, also repeatedly, by the House of Commons.
See today’s news reports:
The Bishop of Winchester spoke in one of the debates, and you can read what he said here.
The Hansard record of the adjournment debate on “The Application of the Sex Discrimination Legislation to Religious Organisations” is now available, starting here.
TheyWorkForYou version is now also available here.
Video of the debate is available at BBC Democracy Live, over here.
Update
Riazat Butt has written a report, now on the Guardian website, The church of England: above the law?
On Wednesday 11th November at 3.30pm in Westminster Hall, Robert Key, MP for Salisbury, has arranged for a debate to take place on:
“The Application of the Sex Discrimination Legislation to Religious Organisations”.
WATCH has more information here.
More information about Westminster Hall debates is available here. Debates are open to the public.
The Church Times carries a report on this, written by me, and headlined Same-sex marriage approved.
THE Kyrkomötet (General Synod) of the Church of Sweden approved a recommendation that the Swedish Church should conduct weddings in church for both heterosexual and same-sex couples last week. The marriage liturgy will be amended slightly to reflect this.
The changes will take effect from Sunday 1 November. No individual cleric will be obliged to perform such a service, but every parish will be required to make provision for the liturgy, and to use visiting priests if necessary. The voting was 176 in favour with 62 against, and 11 abstentions…
The Church of Sweden has published a PDF file in English, containing several documents explaining the background leading up to this decision. You can find it here: Information on a possible decision regarding same-sex marriages.
The Church Times Question of the Week is related to this topic.
Earlier reports are here.
Updated again Monday
From The Local the English language news website in Sweden, comes this report:
The Synod of the Lutheran Church of Sweden has come down in favour of church weddings for homosexuals in a vote held on Thursday morning.
The decision, which is based on a proposal from the church’s governing board, means that the Church of Sweden will conduct wedding ceremonies for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
The proposal was approved by 176 of 249 voting members…
Our own correspondent reports the vote was 176 Ayes, 62 Noes, 11 Abstentions.
Updates
Swedish Radio has a more detailed report at Church Says Yes to Gay Weddings.
Independent Swedish church agrees to conduct gay weddings by Ilze Filks of Reuters
BBC Sweden church allows gay weddings
AFP Sweden’s Lutheran church to celebrate gay weddings
Religious Intelligence George Conger Sweden church allows gay weddings
Monday updates
Bishop David Hamid has written about this on his blog, Church of Sweden Approves Marriage of Same Sex Couples.
Andrew Brown has written at Cif belief Swedish church not so gay-friendly.
ENS has publised a report from ENI by Trevor Grundy and Fredrick Nzwili Lutheran decision on same-sex marriage draws flak from Africa, England.
The Fawcett Society promotes 30 October as Equal Pay Day.
Ekklesia has published an article Women’s dignity and the church’s tainted love by Fran Porter which discusses the relationship between this and the Church of England, including, but not limited to, the issue of women as bishops.
…For those who argue that opposing women bishops is not about the secular discourse of equality but about the theological discourse of faith, the two issues of the gender pay gap and women’s potential inclusion to the episcopate do not speak to each other. Indeed, it may be possible to support the former while opposing the latter.
The Church of England has excluded its own governance and practice from equality legislation by claiming the Section 19 exemption for organised religions in the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, which already means women clergy (deacons and priests) are not covered by the legal employment protections of that Act.
In particular, a Parochial Parish Council (PCC) can advertise for male clergy only to apply for vacancies of incumbent, curate or non-stipendiary minister and may also ban a woman priest from celebrating the Eucharist within parish boundaries. [3]
More generally, the language of equality is not a first language for theology or more specifically theological anthropology; Christian understanding of human beings and how they relate to one another is expressed in language of human personhood created in the image of God more than it is through modern sensibilities of equality. Equality is not irrelevant, but it has a derivative value.
Hence, for Christians, the equality that human beings have with each other comes from their commonality in being creatures of the one Creator. The dignity of each human person comes from our being made in the image of God. Similarly, the inalienable rights that human beings possess without distinction, for Christians, are rooted in the understanding of God as Creator who bestows innate worth on humanity.
Yet this framework of personhood that enables those opposed to women bishops (and women priests) to argue that their position is one of theology and faith (Jesus ordained and gave authority only to men) and not one of secular equality or justice [4], is the same framework in which those who support women’s ordination live and breath…
Recently the Quakers made news on this topic. See for example, this report in The Times by Ruth Gledhill Quakers back gay marriage and call for reform:
The Quakers sanctioned gay marriages yesterday and called on the Government to give same-sex couples who marry in their ceremonies the same standing as heterosexual people.
Other Christian churches and religious denominations have approved blessings for same-sex civil partnerships but the Quakers are Britain’s first mainstream religious group to approve marriages for homosexuals…
Some background to this decision may be found in one of the papers from The Interfaith Legal Advisers Network meeting in June 2008:
At the second meeting, Network Members shared their experiences on how their own religious traditions interact with the law on marriage, including divorce, re-marriage, interfaith marriages and civil partnerships.
The papers are available as PDF files:
The concluding paragraphs of Mark Hill’s paper make interesting reading:
Thus we find ourselves in the curious position whereby Church of England clergy (i) are under a legally enforceable duty to solemnise the matrimony of atheists, non-believers and adherents of other faiths; (ii) have a statutory discretion to refuse to marry divorcées, transgendered and certain others exercisable in accordance with their conscience irrespective of the religious beliefs and affiliations of the couple; and (iii) are canonically prohibited from conducting a service of blessing following the registration of a civil partnership. Ironically, devout Christians in the latter category are denied the ministrations of the Church by way of a blessing whereas Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews and non-believer couples can compel the use Church of England rites and liturgy and the ministrations of its clergy. The pastoral damage which might result from this mixed message cannot be adequately explained away as an anomaly of the historic accident of establishment in a plural society.
CONCLUSION
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is one of a number of pieces of legislation that have had an impact upon religious communities and individuals. The Act creates a newly recognised legal relationship which cannot be entered into on religious premises, at which no religious service can be used, and the blessing of which is expressly forbidden by the Church of England. Moreover despite political and judicial rhetoric that civil partnerships are different and distinct from marriage, the exact differences have yet to be fully explored and clearly articulated by the domestic judiciary or by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Although the Act defines the relationship a being for two individuals of the same gender, physical intimacy, still less sexual fidelity, do not feature in the provisions of the Act. This means that the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement is wholly consistent with the letter of the legislation; whether it accords with popular perceptions of the legislation is another matter. Future judicial interpretation of the Act may pose challenges for the clergy of the Established Church. The implications for Church of England clergy who are commonly understood to be under a legal duty to solemnise the marriage of parishioners creates what can at best be styled a pastoral anomaly. Whether promoted by accident or design, the effects of the Civil Partnership Act on the nature of Establishment in times of changing social mores are far from insignificant and not yet fully understood.
(See PDF for omitted footnotes.)
Here’s a document I should have linked over two years ago, but I only discovered its existence today.
The Church of England Archbishops’ Council published this guidance on the Equality Act 2006, prepared by the Legal Office at Church House (.rtf format), in May 2007.
As the CofE website page says:
Equality Act 2006
The Equality Act 2006 – relating to religion and belief, and sexual orientation – came into force on 30 April 2007. Guidance on this legislation has been issued by the Archbishops’ Council and is available here. The guidance is intended as a basic guide for dioceses, parishes and incumbents and should not be treated as a substitute for specific legal advice.
The Law and Religion Scholars Network has published a database of recent cases dealing with religion and law.
The database can be found here. (hat tip Neil Addison).
In considering the Equality Bill and its applicability to the Church of England and other religious organisations, it may be worth noting how narrow is the scope of the existing Clause 7(3) in the current Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. Clause 7(3) is the provision that provides an exemption to parts of the regulations when employment is for purposes of an organised religion.
What I mean by this is not the issue of to whom the exemption may apply, which has recently become a item of controversy, but the separate issue of to which parts of the regulations the exemption applies.
The corresponding wording of the Equality Bill in Schedule 9 is designed to replicate exactly the existing regulations. Here is the relevant wording of the current Regulation 7 (emphasis added):
7. - (1) In relation to discrimination falling within Regulation 3 (discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation) -
(a) regulation 6(1)(a) or (c) does not apply to any employment;
(b) regulation 6(2)(b) or (c) does not apply to promotion or transfer to, or training for, any employment; and
(c) regulation 6(2)(d) does not apply to dismissal from any employment,
where paragraph (2) or (3) applies.
These are the only clauses of the regulations to which clause 7(3) applies.
All other parts of the regulations apply even when employment is for purposes of an organised religion. This includes all other clauses within Regulation 6, and all other regulations, e.g. Regulation 4, Discrimination by way of victimisation, and Regulation 5, Harassment on grounds of sexual orientation. In connection with the latter, Regulation 6, Clause 3 reads:
(3) It is unlawful for an employer, in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to subject to harassment a person whom he employs or who has applied to him for employment.
Regulation 5 defines the term “harassment” for the purposes of these regulations.
LGCM has published a briefing document on the Equality Bill.
You can find the full text of this document over here.
Three developments which though not directly related to the Church of England are relevant to the general topic of such legislation in the UK.
Third Sector reports in Charity takes gay adoption case onward to High Court that:
The Catholic adoption agency that was told by both the Charity Commission and the Charity Tribunal that it could not restrict its services to heterosexual parents will take its case to the High Court.
The tribunal granted permission for the appeal by Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) earlier this month (Third Sector Online, 8 July), but the charity was unsure at the time whether it would go ahead.
Mark Wiggin, chief executive of Catholic Care, told Third Sector the charity would pursue the appeal, but he was unable to give any details about how the case would be funded. Taking the case to the Charity Tribunal cost the charity about £75,000…
Last week in the Tablet the RC Archbishop of Cardiff, Peter Smith wrote about the Equality Bill. His article is titled Voice that must be heard.
English and Welsh Catholic bishops warn that equality legislation currently before Parliament poses a threat to religious freedom. Here the chairman of their Christian Responsibility and Citizenship Committee explains why it is so important to challenge the secular status quo.
And, the RC bishops responded formally to the UK Consultation on the European Commission Proposal for an Equal Treatment Directive. They issued a press notice, and published their response in full, as a PDF. In it they assert that:
…the Church is not seeking special provisions which exempt it from universally applicable requirements.
They do however argue that:
…in the Church’s view an additional sub-paragraph is needed confirming that differences of treatment shall not constitute discrimination where such differences are required to enable a religious body to function in accordance with its ethos. A provision of this nature would go a long way to ensure that competing rights are balanced, rather than religious sensibilities being ignored or becoming the subject of tendentious claims.
Jonathan Petre at the Daily Mail has a report: ‘Britain has become a cold place for Christians’ - Bishop warns.
A leading Church of England Bishop has warned that Britain has become a ‘cold place’ for Christians because of a raft of controversial equality laws.
The Bishop of Winchester, Michael Scott-Joynt, criticised the new Equality Bill, due to be law next year, which will force religious organisations that regard same-sex relationships as sinful to employ gay workers.
In a foreword to a report by the pressure group Christian Action Research and Education, the Bishop wrote: ‘The sad fact is that Britain – which owes so much to its Christian heritage – is increasingly becoming a “cold” place which, as any reflection on the fruit of Christian good works will demonstrate, is not in the general interest of society.’
He said there appeared to be a ‘concerted’ attack on the rights of Christians and when there were clashes, gay rights triumphed.
In the debate on retaining the “Waddington amendment” reported earlier, the bishops of Chichester and Winchester both made speeches.
Hansard reports the full texts:
Bishop of Chichester
Here’s an extract from his contribution:
…The question that we are facing in this debate is accurately described as one of free speech. What is at stake is whether your Lordships’ House and this Parliament intend to outlaw open discussion and teaching, not just among Christians but among others, of views that differ from the currently dominant political orthodoxy, and therefore privilege, in the face of others, that currently dominant orthodoxy. To be explicit, I mean the orthodoxy that sexual preference is as innate and fixed as ethnicity, and that sexual preference or orientation is more akin to ethnicity than to religious belief. That is the current political orthodoxy that lies behind the Government’s Clause 61. People of all sorts in this country need to be assured, peaceably and quietly, whether on street corners, in churches, mosques, synagogues or wherever, that they are free to express views that others may strongly disagree with but which question the current dominant political orthodoxy.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The right reverend Prelate had the good fortune not to hear what I had to say. I first reassure him that I believe everything he just said to be amply protected by the law. Secondly, although he refers to what he calls “current political orthodoxy”, surely even a Lord Spiritual would accept that there is scientific evidence to show that the reason why people are gay is innate and not to do with some kind of personal choice.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: No. My own studies, which I suspect are comparable to that of the noble Lord in these matters, suggest that that is the case for some of those who understand themselves to be gay but for others it may not be. Substantial scientific, psychological and medical research points to the statement that I made a moment ago. That is why I say that this question is by no means settled. To pass law on the assumption that we can use the language of sexual orientation and believe that we are talking about something that is absolutely fixed and clear, as ethnicity might be thought to be, is a mistaken political orthodoxy…
Mr Clive Scowen (London) asked the Secretary General:
Q. Have any representations been made to HM Government, or briefings given to members of Parliament and peers, concerning the Equality Bill currently before Parliament, in particular relating to the likely impact of its provisions on Christian employers wishing to recruit committed disciples of Christ wishing to fashion their lives according to biblical precepts and, if so, what in outline was the substance of those submissions and briefings?
Mr William Fittall replied:
A. There is a copy on the Church of England website of the substantial submission produced by the Archbishops’ Council in response to the Government’s earlier consultation exercise. We produced a briefing document for MPs for the Second reading of the Bill and I gave oral evidence to the Bill Committee on 9 June at which, with representatives of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference and Board of Deputies I argued strongly against the narrowing of the provisions for religious organisation in relation to employment. Our lobbying, in partnership with others, continues both publicly and privately.
Two supplementaries were asked:
The materials mentioned by Mr Fittall can be found:
Submission to the earlier consultation (A Framework for Fairness)
For the background to this, see bishops oppose repeal of Waddington.
The relevant bill reached the House of Lords this week, and as the Independent reports,
Peers today defeated the Government’s attempt to overturn a “free speech” defence to the law on homophobic hatred.
The move by Tory former Home Secretary Lord Waddington to uphold the provision was passed by 186 votes to 133, majority 53.
Read ‘Free speech’ defeats incitement laws by Nicholas Randall and Anthony Looch, Press Association.
The BBC also reports it as Labour defeat on incitement laws.
Riazat Butt has written a comment article on Cif belief Free speech or homophobia?
…The Bishop of Winchester, a senior Anglican cleric, said: “What is at stake is whether this House and this Parliament intends to outlaw, among not just Christians but others, open discussion and teaching of views that differ from the currently dominant political orthodoxy.”
Some peers, as well as the Ministry of Justice, were disappointed with today’s result, saying the free speech provision would be used as a defence by those looking to incite hatred towards gays and lesbians.
In what was portrayed as a battle for free speech, a coalition of Anglican bishops, Conservative peers, Labour malcontents and leading crossbenchers united to block the proposals…
The previous report on this matter is at RC adoption agency loses appeal.
The latest development is that the Charity Tribunal has given approval for an appeal to the High Court against some of its recent findings.
The full text of its decision on the appeal is here: Ruling on Catholic Care’s request for Permission to Appeal (6 July 2009)
Charity Finance explains:
Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) has been granted leave to appeal to the High Court against certain parts, but not all, of the Charity Tribunal’s recent decision not to allow it to discriminate against gay people.
As the case is believed to have been the first in which a court or tribunal was asked to consider the correct interpretation of regulation 18 of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, the Tribunal said the case “raises a point of law of public importance which it would be appropriate for the High Court to consider on appeal”.
…But now it has said that Catholic Care can take the case to the High Court to argue seven of its 14 grounds for appeal. The seven that are allowed collectively raise the same point of law, namely that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 and its interpretation of regulation 18 in particular.
However, it will not allow the charity to appeal against the other seven points raised, concluding that these were “misconceived”.
Third Sector also has a report.
Any appeal will presumably also be of great interest to the Scottish Charity Regulator, which appears to have allowed a Scottish RC agency to make similar changes to its trust deed.
Updated Tuesday
This week’s edition of The Tablet has a news report, unfortunately subscriber-only until next Friday, that the Attorney-General, Baroness Scotland “has pledged to help the Church gain amendments to parts of the proposed Equality Bill.”
The essence of this report is however contained in the article published by the National Secular Society and titled Catholic Attorney General seeks to water down protections under Equality Bill.
There is some confused reporting here. It’s not clear whether the confusion is due to the reporter, or to what Mr Kornicki said.
The clause that deals with exemptions on the basis of Religion as the “protected characteristic” is Schedule 9, Clause 3.
This is entirely separate from Clause 2, which deals with exemptions on various other bases not including Religion, and which incorporates the new explicit definition of “the purposes of an organised religion”. The government contends that this definition is not a narrowing of the existing law, but the churches appear not to accept that view.
But in any case, that definition has no bearing on Clause 3, which reads as follows:
Other requirements relating to religion or belief
3 A person (A) with an ethos based on religion or belief does not contravene a provision mentioned in paragraph 1(2) by applying in relation to work a requirement to be of a particular religion or belief if A shows that, having regard to that ethos and to the nature or context of the work—
(a) it is an occupational requirement,
(b) the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and
(c) the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it).
Note that this exemption is available to any organisation “with an ethos based on religion or belief” and is not limited to “organised religion” at all.
So it is unlikely, I think, that what Baroness Scotland, Richard Kornicki, and Stephen Pound are concerned about is in fact to do with discrimination “against those who don’t share their faith”. It’s much more likely that they are concerned with discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in Clause 2.
Tuesday update
I have now heard back from the offices of both the Attorney-General and the Catholic Bishops Conference, and can confirm that:
- it is only Clause 2 which is the subject of concern
- Baroness Scotland does not intend to submit any amendment to the bill.
The Times reports today on a new survey of public attitudes in Britain to homosexuality.
See Church ‘out of touch’ as public supports equal rights for homosexuals.
And also Sizeable minority remains hostile to same-sex relationships.
A PDF file containing some of the survey statistics is here.
Update
Ruth Gledhill comments on this in Church ‘out of touch’ on gays, says Times poll.
The House of Commons committee stage continues, you can read the transcripts of all the sessions via this page, or via this page.
The discussion of Clause 12 can be found here.
The discussion on Schedule 9 starts here. See below the fold for an extract.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights also held a hearing on Wednesday. Read the written answers from the Solicitor General to the questions posed in advance by the committee in this PDF file. Several of the questions relate to Schedule 9. One in particular is of interest:
37. Does the Government consider that the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 will permit employers in certain circumstances to make adherence by employees to religious doctrine in their lifestyles and personal relationships a genuine occupational requirement for a particular post?
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 permits organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief to require an employee to be of a particular religion or belief. The organisation must show that being of that religion or belief is a requirement for the work, taking into account both the nature or context of it and the ethos of the organisation - the requirement must not be a sham or pretext.
It is very difficult to see how in practice beliefs in lifestyles or personal relationships could constitute a religious belief which is a requirement for a job, other than for ministers of religion (and this is covered in paragraph 2 of Schedule 9). It is perhaps worth noting, however, that if an employee has been employed on the basis of an occupational requirement to be of a particular religion or belief and the employee can no longer be considered to be of that religion or belief e.g. an employee who has lost faith, then the employer would be able to terminate employment as the employee would no longer meet the occupational requirement.Is the position different if a religious organisation is wholly or mainly delivering public functions?
No.
Extracts from two speeches during the discussion on Schedule 9:
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean, Conservative):
Several hon. Members and I have held a number of discussions with some of the Church organisations and two issues have arisen. The hon. Gentleman has already alluded to the first, which is the narrowing of the definition of an organised religion under paragraph 2(8)(a) and (b). At the moment, the Government’s position in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 does not attempt to define it at such a level. The then Minister of State, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, said in response to the debate on the 2003 regulations in the House of Lords:
“When drafting Regulation 7(3), we had in mind a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 779.]
When we had such a discussion previously, there was no disagreement about those who are in a post of clergy where they are taking religious services. The issue was the width of the scope of paragraph 2(8)(b), which concerns
“promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion…to others”.
We have had some discussion around whether it would cover those who, for example, were involved in promoting a religious organisation to the outside world and representing its case, for whom it would be significant that their public utterances about the things that were important to that religion or Church, and their behaviour, would be in line with the views of the Church. It clearly would not be convincing if they said one thing and did another.
Many Church groups think that the wording of the provision represents a narrowing that will rule out a number of the posts that are currently allowed under the 2003 regulations, which the Bill is effectively supposed to be carrying across. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us about the translation of those regulations into the Bill, and say what was intended, so that we can see whether that has been the effect. Will she also set out what posts the Government think should be covered?
One of the things that has confused the situation is the explanatory notes, which talk specifically about a “church youth worker”. We have discussed whether the nature of the role of a church youth worker could be determined as
“promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion…to others”
as under paragraph 2(8)(b). We have also considered whether that type of post should be included, and we will welcome the Minister’s comments about that.
The second area, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, East touched on, is the proportionality test. A number of Churches and religious organisations think that that represents a further narrowing. It concerns the condition in sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) that when the “compliance principle” or the “non-conflict principle” are engaged, both must be applied only if doing so is a proportionate means of complying with the doctrine of the religion. That proportionality test is not present in the 2003 regulations. The Churches are concerned not because they want to act disproportionately, but because putting that in means that courts and tribunals will have to be involved in addressing questions about the nature and extent of particular religious doctrines and the way in which they work.
I raise that because when regulation 7(3) of the 2003 regulations was drafted, it seemed that the Government’s policy was deliberately not to impose a proportionality test. In the case of R (Amicus) v.Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 2004, the witness statement filed on behalf of the Secretary of State explained:
“Regulation 7(2) simply sets out criteria of general application and leaves it to the courts and tribunals to determine in individual cases if those criteria are met. This was not done in relation to employment for purposes of an organised religion in regulation 7(3), because the Government was concerned it would lead to litigation in tribunals about the extent to which requirements dictated by doctrine or the religious convictions of followers could legitimately limit working for an organised religion, and to what extent those requirements, and by extension, the doctrine or convictions giving rise to them, could be said to be reasonable or proportionate. The Government was engaged in striking a delicate balance”—
the Committee acknowledges that it is a balance—
“between the employment rights of gay and lesbian people, and the right of religious groups to freedom of religion. The Government took the view that it is not appropriate for courts or tribunals to make such judgments, and that the balance should be identified in the Regulations themselves.”
It would be helpful if the Minister commented on the judgment at that time, why the Government in effect have introduced the proportionality test and whether they recognise that it carries that risk—that it opens up to courts and tribunals the test of having to make judgments about individual religions. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East made a very good point when he said that those judgments are best left to the religions themselves, rather than being taken outside the religion and given to the industrial tribunal or the court.
Those are the two issues on which I wanted to probe the Minister and invite her to set them out clearly for the Committee, so that we can see whether the Bill does what the Government’s stated intentions are.
Vera Baird (Solicitor General, Attorney General’s Office; Redcar, Labour):
The effect of amendment 189 would be to exclude from that definition those whose employment “wholly” as opposed to “mainly” involves duties between one of the definition’s two limbs. The existing exceptions about employment
“for the purposes of an organised religion”
do not contain the definition of what that expression means. However, contrary to what has been suggested, the new definition does not narrow the scope of the existing exceptions.
There has been some confusion about what is meant by
“for the purposes of an organised religion”,
and we have therefore included a definition of the term to clear up misunderstandings, to save courts and tribunals having to go into areas of potential religious controversy and to reduce the risk of the exception being misused. The definition is designed to make it clear that the exception applies to a very narrow range of employment, such as ministers of religion plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those that exist to promote and represent religion. I have found examples of that difficult to put forward. That was again what Lord Sainsbury had in mind when he talked about the existing exemption under regulation 7(3) of the Employment Equality (Sexual Relations) Regulations 2003. What he said was entirely consistent with the Amicus case, which was that regulation 7(3) was very narrow and affords an exception only in very limited circumstances.
The Public Bill Committee that held hearings reported earlier and also here, is now engaged in a clause-by-clause review of the text of the bill. The easiest way to follow their deliberations is via this page, or alternatively via TheyWorkForYou (which runs a little behind in its updating, but is more nicely formatted). To keep up with the amendments, you need to check that page.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has announced that it will also hold hearings about this bill. There is a Press Notice available here, which says:
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is considering the compatibility of the Equality Bill with the UK’s human rights obligations.
The Committee has decided to focus on a number of matters in the Equality Bill which it considers are capable of raising significant human rights issues. Further details of the Committee’s concerns are contained in its letter of 2 June 2009 to the Solicitor General Vera Baird QC MP:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/Baird_Equality020609.pdf
During its recent review of its working practices, the Committee agreed that it would be helpful to engage relevant stakeholders in its legislative scrutiny work. Submissions of no more than 1,500 words on the human rights compatibility of this Bill are therefore requested by 17 June 2009…
Separately, the Government Equalities Office has launched a consultation on specific public sector equality duties. As explained on this page:
On Thursday 11th June 2009, a consultation document setting out policy proposals for the specific public sector equality duties was published. The closing date for comments is 30 September 2009. Please click below to view the document:
There is a lengthy press release which gives more background to this.
Updated
A comment article, written by me, appears at Cif belief.
See Equality, the church and discrimination. (They changed the title…)
“Unjust discrimination is fundamentally wrong.” So say the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales in evidence to parliament on the equality bill. But doesn’t this terminology imply there might be another category of “just discrimination” which is slightly less awful, or even in some circumstances righteous?
Update
A news report, also written by me, appears in this week’s Church Times. This was filed on Wednesday morning, before the publication of the full transcripts of the Tuesday hearings.
See Churches argue for job discrimination.
REPRESENTATIVES of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church told the House of Commons on Tuesday that their existing right to discriminate in cases of employment, on the basis of factors other than religion, would be unreasonably limited by the new Equality Bill. A scrutiny committee was taking oral and written evidence this week, before starting its clause-by-clause examination of the Bill, which is scheduled for completion in early July…
(Note that the last part of the article is from another journalist).
The House of Commons committee continued its hearings on the Equality Bill yesterday.
The first session of the day (third session in total so far) heard first from the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church among others. You can read a complete transcript of the proceedings, starting at this page. This part of the session continues for four pages.
Update More user-friendly link to the transcript from TheyWorkForYou here.
The session continued with a second group of witnesses, from business and trade union organisations.
Later in the day, a further session was held, which can be followed from here. And the user-friendly link from TheyWorkForYou is here.
I will have my own comments in a while about the first part of the first session of the day, at which I was present.
There was no written statement from the Church of England. The written statement from the Roman Catholic bishops has been linked previously, and is here.
First, there is a Research Paper from the House of Commons Library concerning the bill, available as a PDF, see Research Paper 09/42.
Committee hearings have begun, and Hansard reports can be found linked from this page. A more user-friendly version can be found here at TheyWorkForYou.
Written evidence has been submitted by various organisations, all listed there.
Among them are these:
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales
Discrimination Law Association
Proposed amendments to the bill can be found here (click on Show+ Amendment Papers and Proceedings).
Ekklesia published on 2 June a study by Savi Hensman The Equality Bill 2008-9 and church responses to it.
Updated again Saturday
Charity Finance reports Charity Tribunal dismisses Catholic adoption case
The Charity Tribunal has rejected the latest attempt by a catholic adoption charity to circumnavigate rules preventing it from discriminating against homosexual couples seeking to adopt children.
Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) had sought to take advantage of an exemption in the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which suggests that discrimination can occur if it is in pursuit of charitable objectives.
In its preliminary judgment in March, the Tribunal had ruled the exemption could only apply if the charity’s activities were not made unlawful by other provisions.
But at the final hearing last month, the charity was unable to demonstrate that it could operate in such a way.
See also Third Sector Online reports (registration required)
Children’s charity Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) has lost its appeal to the Charity Tribunal against the Charity Commission’s refusal to allow it to change its objects to allow its adoption service to discriminate against homosexual parents.
The charity wanted to take advantage of an exemption in the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 that permits charities to discriminate on the grounds of “the provisions of a charitable instrument”, such as a governing document.
But in its first ever final judgement, the tribunal’s panel of three legal members, led by president Alison McKenna, concluded that Catholic Care would infringe other provisions in the regulations if it discriminated against homosexual parents and would therefore be operating unlawfully…
Two earlier reports from the same source:
Allow us to exclude gay people, Catholic adoption charity tells Charity Tribunal.
Adoption charities must justify equality law exemption
The decisions of the Charities Commission and the Charities Tribunal are all available online:
Charities Commission:
final decision (PDF) and summary here
Charities Tribunal: (all PDFs)
Directions Order with Ruling (7 January 2009)
Ruling on Preliminary Question (13 March 2009)
Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v The Charity Commission for England and Wales decision (1 June 2009)
Other media reports:
Daily Mail Steve Doughty Catholic ban on adoption by same-sex couples is ruled illegal
Telegraph Catholic charities breaking law on homosexual adoption
Neil Addison writes at Religion Law Blog about this in Catholic Adoption Agencies lose case:
…What the agencies were trying to do was to change their objects so as to add the following
“The Charity shall only provide adoption services to heterosexuals and such services to heterosexuals shall only be provided in accordance with the tenets of the Church. For the avoidance of doubt the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds from time to time shall be the arbiter of whether such services and the manner of their provision fall within the tenets of the Church”
They argued that this would enable them to operate because of the exemption for Charities under reg 18 of the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007 which say
“18.—(1) Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful for a person to provide benefits only to persons of a particular sexual orientation, if—
(a) he acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument, and
(b) the restriction of benefits to persons of that sexual orientation is imposed by reason of or on the grounds of the provisions of the charitable instrument”
Mr Addison goes on to explain where he disagrees with the tribunal, why even if the agency had won it would have been a pyrrhic victory, and he also offers an alternative solution that he had recommended, but which was it seems rejected.
The Catholic Herald has reported on this, Judgment seals fate of adoption agencies. This includes:
However, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator allowed St Margaret’s Adoption and Child Care of the Archdiocese of Glasgow to change its charitable objects to continue its policy of assessing only heterosexual married couples and single people as adopters.
That has prompted a complaint from the National Secular Society, see Scottish Charity Regulator lambasted for caving in to Catholic Charity over gay adoption.
See also SNP and Catholic Church’s secret plan to sidestep legislation on gay adoptions in the Glasgow Sunday Herald.
Ekklesia has reported on the English case, and refers to the views of the LGCM RC Caucus, see Gay Catholics welcome rulings against adoption agency discrimination.
The publication of the proceedings before the Charities Tribunal has publicised the actual drafting of the proposed charitable objects which the Leeds and Birmingham agencies wished to adopt.
Both draft instruments relied upon the following paragraph to gain the desired exemption: “The Society shall provide adoption services only to heterosexuals and only in accordance with the tenets of the Roman Catholic church”.
The Roman Catholic Caucus of LGCM points out that, contrary to the general press comment about the appeals by these adoption agencies, the agencies were not seeking permission to place children only with married couples. They were seeking to exclude all lesbian, gay and bisexual people from the ambit of their services, including those who choose to live their lives celibately in strict accordance with Catholic church teaching.
“This proposed object is blatantly contrary to Catholic church teaching,” comments the Caucus.
The Caucus says it also became clear in various discussions before the Charities Tribunal that the “adoption services” referred to include services to children who are to be placed or have been placed for adoption. The proposed wording would therefore have required the agency to ascertain the sexual orientation of any child who was placed for adoption as a condition of providing services to that child.
As the “adoption services” described include support after the child has been placed, this would also involve withdrawing after-care services to a family in which the adopted child comes out after the adoption has taken place. The LGCM Catholic Caucus says it considers that “most Catholics will find this proposal both offensive and contrary to the values of the Roman Catholic Church.”
The full text of the statement from the LGCM RC Caucus is available at Caucus reacts to Adoption Ruling.
Regulation 7(3) in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 permits religious organisations, but nobody else, to claim an “exception for genuine occupational requirement” related to sexual orientation as distinct from a requirement to be of a particular sexual orientation. The latter exception is provided in Regulation 7(2), and may be claimed by any employer.
The Equality Bill now before Parliament proposes to alter this regulation, among others. In particular a specific definition of “the purposes of organised religion” has been added.
The adoption of the regulation in 2003 was not without controversy. I wrote extensively about this at the time and will review that history here now, for the benefit of those who were not following Thinking Anglicans six years ago.
Regulation 7(3) arose directly from a request made by the Church of England.
Here is the full text of the 23 January 2003 submission made by the Archbishops’ Council to the DTI consultation “The Way Ahead”. The crucial section reads:
…21. This does not mean that the Church challenges the principle that homosexuals should have full equality and protection before the law. On the contrary, we welcome the steps taken over recent years to combat all prejudice, to repudiate homophobic violence and to create new legal safeguards and protections. The new regulations are an important part of that process. Nevertheless, it is crucial that they do not encroach on the freedom which all religious organisations must have to set and enforce their own conduct rules in relation to those who work for and represent them.
22. What those conduct rules should be is a matter of continuing debate within the Church of England and indeed within many other Churches. The point is simply that however those internal debates are resolved, Churches and other faith-based organisations must not find themselves in a position where the law of the land is preventing them from conscientiously applying their own sincerely held doctrines and beliefs on moral issues.
23. The need to safeguard religious doctrine, belief and susceptibilities was, of course, recognised as long ago as 1975 by Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act. A corresponding provision was included by the Government in the Gender Reassignment Regulations of 1999. Our officials have already suggested to yours that the solution to our difficulties could be provided by a provision directly modelled on the earlier precedents.
24. We strongly urge the Government therefore to insert in part 5 of the Regulations the following provision:
“Nothing in parts II to IV of these Regulations shall render unlawful anything done for the purposes or in connection with an organised religion so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion or avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers.”
That proposal was based on what was at the time the wording of Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act.
The government did not accept this wording unchanged but did issue a revised draft on 7 May which included 7(3) for the first time. See here for a comparison of the two drafts. The first was what had gone out to consultation in October 2002, the second was issued on 7 May. There had been no prior notice of the changes being made to Clause 7. The text of the explanatory notes is here.
On 8 May a letter was sent by William Fittall to members of the Archbishops’ Council, members of the House of Bishops, and Diocesan Secretaries, reporting what had been achieved by Church House staff in their negotiations with the government about the Employment Equality Regulations. Here is the full text of the letter. It included this:
…The final and most difficult issue has been the implications of the draft Sexual Orientation Regulations for ourselves and other Churches and faith groups. The nub of the difficulty here is that the courts are most unlikely to make any clear distinction between orientation and behaviour. There was therefore a substantial risk that the Regulations would encroach on the freedom which all religious organisations need to determine their own conduct rules in relation to those who work for and represent them. Our concerns were shared by a number of other Churches and by the Inter-Faith Network.
The Government has moved to meet these concerns, though by adopting a different drafting approach from the one which we advocated. The Sexual Orientation Regulations now include a provision in relation to employment or professional or trade qualification ‘for purposes of an organised religion’. In such circumstances it will continue to be lawful to apply a requirement related to sexual orientation - (i) so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion, or (ii) because of the nature of the employment and the context in which it is carried out, so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly-held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers’.
We have had long and difficult discussions with government officials over the phrase ‘for purposes of an organised religion’. It will clearly provide a much greater degree of protection in relation to Church posts and officers than the earlier draft of the Regulations. But it remains to be seen how precisely the courts will interpret it, for example in relation to Church schools and other Christian organisations.
It is because of this lack of clarity and the risk of contentious and costly litigation, that our welcome for the changes which the Government has made is somewhat qualified.
On 9 June William Fittall wrote to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments ( JCSI), which scrutinises such documents on behalf of both houses of Parliament. The full text of his letter is reported here. He wrote:
…10. Our objectives in relation to the sexual orientation regulations are, therefore, simply put: to ensure that they do not deny faith communities a broad measure of freedom to determine what requirements in relation to sexual behaviour should apply to those who wish to serve or represent them, even though this might otherwise constitute direct or indirect discrimination in relation to sexual orientation.
11. There are, as the Committee’s questioning explored, some difficult issues here over who should be regarded as serving and representing faith communities and whether similar requirements are reasonable in relation to all of them. For some purposes the Church of England draws a distinction between its ordained priesthood and others. But we do not believe that an exemption in these regulations simply in relation to ministers of religion (including ministers of non-Christian faiths, many of whom are subject to rules on sexual behaviour no less stringent than our own) would be satisfactory. Many denominations, including our own, have large numbers of lay people who occupy key paid roles nationally or locally in the churches and their agencies, and are as a result expected to live in a manner consistent with the teachings of the church.
On Friday 14 June the JCSI reported on these regulations. They made specific criticisms of the Sexual Orientation regulations. They expressed serious doubts that this clause was lawful under the European Communities Act 1992, saying: “the body of the Directive affords no special position to religious organisations in the context of sexual orientation… (contrast religion or belief discrimination for which Article 4.2 makes special provision).” They also published various additional documents here and here. A final version of the evidence taken on 3 June can be found here.
The House of Commons Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation considered them the same day. The lengthy debate is reported verbatim, starting here. The committee eventually agreed that it had considered the regulations.
The House of Commons approved these regulations on 25 June.
The House of Lords approved these regulations on Tuesday 17 June. The two hours of debate is reported verbatim, starting here.
The Church Times carried an article about these regulations, written by me, in the issue of Friday 18 July. Here is the draft article as submitted. (The published version is sadly not available in the CT archive for 2003.)
On 21 July the National Union of Teachers announced: NUT launches legal challenge to Government sexual orientation regulations. The litigation had begun.
As you can see from earlier articles here, there is a considerable fuss about certain clauses in the new Equality Bill. The main, but not the only fuss, relates to sexual orientation.
To understand this subject, you need to have the actual texts, not only of the proposed clauses, but also of the current legislation that they are intended to replace.
Current legislation:
Regulation 7 of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.
Amended version of Clause 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Proposed legislation:
Equality Bill, Schedule 9, Clause 2. On this copy I have underlined those parts of the new wording that are, in my opinion, significant.
Updated
There have been quite a few of these during the last week.
The Church of England Newspaper has a news report by Toby Cohen Churches warned over equality laws. In the paper edition the headline was Minister’s warning to churches on equality.
And Andrew Carey discussed it in his regular opinion column in the same issue, headlined A chilling strategy (reproduced at Anglican Mainstream).
Today, the Church Times reported (scroll down to end of article) on what the Christian Institute said about it, which is based on their press releases, linked earlier.
The Spectator published an article by Melanie Phillips entitled The sexualisation of heresy.
Christian Concern for our Nation published Equality Bill will force Churches to Employ Homosexuals. Earlier this organisation had published Equality Bill: An Unworkable, Muddled Hierarchy of Rights.
Update
Neil Addison at Religion Law Blog wrote Religious Freedom in England Today.
Updated Tuesday evening
Update The text of the “Waddington amendment” can be seen in the context of the legislation it amends by going here.
Today’s Observer has a report by Jamie Doward headlined Bishops fight for right to criticise gay lifestyle.
Church of England bishops are on a collision course with the government over its plans to amend the incitement to hatred laws, claiming they will stifle what they believe is legitimate criticism of homosexual lifestyles.
In what is being portrayed in some parliamentary quarters as a battle for free speech, a coalition of Anglican bishops, Conservative peers, Labour malcontents and leading crossbenchers have united to block the proposals.
You can read exactly what the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham said over here.
For the background to this development, see these two TA articles from 2007:
The latter item contains a link to the statement issued jointly by the Church of England and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales at that time.
More recently (my copy undated, but was sent to me in March) the CofE issued a briefing note to parliamentarians which is reproduced in full below the fold. This shows that the CofE has changed its mind since 2007 about the adequacy of the legislation as originally proposed:
…While we were satisfied with the definition of the offence as it stood, we believe that the amendment successfully moved by Lord Waddington now provides a valuable safeguard…
(The relevant clause was numbered 58 in the original bill but because of other amendments has now becomes clause 61.)
CofE briefing note to parliamentarians - Coroners and Justice Bill - Clause 58
The Church of England, in common with many other organisations - not all of them religious - has concerns about Clause 58 of the Bill, which seeks to remove the so-called “free speech” provision on incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. The Church of England is not convinced of the necessity for this change and as such supports the cross party amendment 297, which seeks to leave out Clause 58 from the Bill.
When the offence of incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation was first put forward within the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (now Act) 2008, we supported it on condition that it did not infringe freedom of expression on issues of sexual morality and conduct. We were satisfied that the high threshold of the offence (intention to stir up hatred by means of threatening words, behaviour or material) struck a reasonable balance between protecting people from attacks directed against their sexual orientation and maintaining freedom of expression.
Subsequently though a “freedom of speech” provision was inserted by a Lords amendment in the name of Lord Waddington and now stands part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. While we were satisfied with the definition of the offence as it stood, we believe that the amendment successfully moved by Lord Waddington now provides a valuable safeguard (parallel to the freedom of expression protection in relation to religious hatred) by making it clear that “the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices” does not in itself constitute an offence. If, as the Government argues, removing the amendment would not lower the threshold of the offence it is hard to see any justification for doing so. If it is argued that it is necessary for the effective operation of the law that the amendment should be removed, the implication would be that such discussion or criticism could in itself constitute an offence, and to this we would be strongly opposed. The present provision was made “for the avoidance of doubt” and in the absence of compelling grounds for change, it seems to us that this is an example of the kind of restless fidgeting with the law that Government and Parliament would do well to avoid.
Problems in this area often arise less from the formulation of the law than from over-zealous action by the police based on misunderstanding of what the law means. This was seen in investigations of alleged homophobic conduct carried out under existing public order legislation. In a joint submission with the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales to the Public Bill Committee of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in November 2007, we said: “We believe it is vital that there should be the maximum possible clarity about what is forbidden and what is permitted. Christians engaged in teaching or preaching and those seeking to act in accord with Christian convictions in their daily lives need to be assured that the expression of strong opinions on marriage or sexuality will not be illegal…. We also draw attention to the possible ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, which formed part of the debates on religious hatred. Uncertainty in the law has the effect of inhibiting behaviour which may not in fact be illegal. People holding firm opinions on sexuality will generally be reluctant to risk the emotional and financial costs of being challenged by a neighbour or colleague and investigated by the police, even if this does not lead to prosecution or conviction.”
There have been several reports following up on the conference last Saturday.
Ekklesia was first onto the web with Religious and non-religious unite to combat homophobia and transphobia by Savi Hensman.
Telegraph Matthew Moore Law ‘will force churches to employ gay staff’.
The Christian Institute has Equality chief ‘regrets’ appointing evangelical as well as Government to force gay
youth workers on church.
Pink News has Trevor Phillips acknowledges ‘intense hurt’ caused by Evangelical appointment and Churches to be banned from turning down gay staff.
The Church Times has a report Equality exemption ‘narrow’, written by me. See text below the fold.
A GOVERNMENT MINISTER has confirmed that the new definition of the “purposes of organised religion” published in the Equality Bill is intended to restore the scope of the exemption to “what it was supposed to have been in the first place”.
Speaking at a conference in London on Saturday, Maria Eagle, Under-Secretary of State in the Government Equalities Office, said that, apart from a few key issues such as whether to have women clergy, churches could not claim to be outside the scope of discrimination law.
Responding to a question about the Church’s intention to support amendments “to restore the status quo” (News, 15 May), Ms Eagle said that in recent years the existing exemptions had been “over-interpreted”. The intention was to make clear now that this exemption was “as narrow as it possibly can be”.
Another speaker at the conference on “Faith, Homophobia, Transphobia and Human Rights” was Trevor Phillips, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission. He spoke candidly about the controversy caused by the choice of the Revd Joel Edwards, formerly general director of the Evangelical Alliance, as a member of the commission. The TUC Annual Congress had unanimously called for Mr Edwards to be removed last year.
Mr Phillips said that he had failed both to “understand what the Evangelical Alliance represents” and “to anticipate the intense hurt” that the appointment had caused within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transexual (LGBT) community. He hoped that the commission would be judged on the basis of what it was able to deliver, and he promised that in relation to the LGBT strand there would be significant improvements soon.
Other speakers included the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, Canon Marilyn McCord Adams, and Canon Giles Fraser. Both called for the Church of England to withdraw its claims for exemption from equal-opportunity laws. Canon Fraser saw no difference between these claims and the homophobia of the football terraces. Professor McCord Adams identified their origins in the “systemic evils” of idolatrous civic and fertility religion.
Updated
This press release from the Faith, Homophobia, Transphobia, & Human Rights Conference held on Saturday:
UK GOVERNMENT WILL STAND FIRM AGAINST FAITH EXEMPTIONS ON LGBT EQUALITIES
Government Equalities Minister, Maria Eagle pledged that she and other Ministers would stand firm against any attempts by faith groups to get out of the demands of LGBT legislation and the forthcoming Equality Bill.
Addressing a cutting-edge UK conference, Faith, Homophobia. Transphobia, & Human Rights - building positive alliances for equality and sexual diversity, Ms. Eagle pointed out :
“Values of equality and social justice are held by many within as well as outside faith communities. The circumstances in which religious institutions can practice anything less than full equality are few and far between. While the state would not intervene in narrowly ritual or doctrinal matters within faith groups, these communities cannot claim that everything they run is outside the scope of anti-discrimination law. Members of faith groups have a role in making the argument in their own communities for greater LGBT acceptance, but in the meantime the state has a duty to protect people from unfair treatment.”
The Minister’s position was reflected in the views of other Conference speakers from a variety of faith, spiritual, and non-religious backgrounds. Bringing greetings from TUC General Secretary, Brendan Barber, Peter Purton from the TUC Equality & Employment Rights Department, warned that people resisting progress towards rights for all “have stolen the language of religion.”
The full press release is published here as a PDF file and most of it is also available here, republished by Religious Intelligence.
Audio recordings of the speakers are also available:
More material is available here.
The Equality Bill 2008-2009 had a second reading in the House of Commons on Monday. The Hansard record of that debate starts here.
The full text of the bill can be found in two PDF files, here, and here. For html formatted versions go here.
For background papers, this page is very useful.
See earlier article for my report in the Church Times on the Church of England’s criticism of the bill’s definition of the phrase “for the purposes of organised religion”.
The Mission and Public Affairs Council of the CofE issued a parliamentary briefing in advance of Monday’s debate. A PDF version is now on the Church Times website. An html version can be found here.
The following article appears in this week’s Church Times.
(Reproduced with permision.)
Church criticises Equality Bill definition
THE Archbishops’ Council is unhappy that the new Equality Bill, which had its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday, has changed the scope of an existing exemption in employment law relating to sexual orientation. It has added a definition of the phrase “for the purposes of organised religion” without prior consultation.
The new definition says that the exemption applies only when “the employment wholly or mainly involves (a) leading or assisting in the observation of liturgical or ritualistic practices of the religion, or (b) promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).”
Previously there had been no such definition, but it was widely believed that the exemption had been intended to have a very narrow scope, and primarily applied to clergy. The employment tribunal ruling on the case of John Reaney v. the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance (Comment, 27 July, 2007) took a different view.
An Archbishops’ Council spokesman said: “This definition . . . was inserted in the Bill without our receiving any prior consultation or warning. It represents a substantial narrowing of the exemption.”
Referring to such posts of secretary general of the Archbishops’ Council or a diocesan secretary as examples of “senior posts representing the Church”, the spokesman said: “That could mean, for example, that the Church would not be able to decline to employ someone in a such a role on the grounds that that person’s previous marriage had ended in divorce as a result of his or her own adultery.
“We shall be raising the issue with the Government, and are likely to support the tabling of amendments that would preserve the status quo.”
Other parts of the exemption are preserved. As now, the discrimination must also be shown to be either: a proportionate way of complying with the doctrines of the religion; or a proportionate means of avoiding conflict with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers.
When it does apply, however, any of the following six distinct requirements (combining an earlier list relating to sex discrimination with the sexual-orientation clause) can still be imposed: to be of a particular sex; not to be a transsexual person; not to be married or a civil partner; not to be married to, or the civil partner of, a person who has a living former spouse or civil partner; relating to circumstances in which a marriage or civil partnership came to an end; related to sexual orientation.
The Archbishops’ Council’s Mission and Public Affairs Council says that the Church “supports the broad objectives of the Bill”, but it has issued a four-page briefing to MPs that details seven areas of concern. One of these is that the law should not be formulated in ways that improperly restrict the freedom of religion, belief, and conscience guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The briefing says: “There is therefore potential for conflict when different protected characteristics give rise to claims of discrimination, harassment or victimisation. . . Guidance will be needed on how to resolve such conflicts, without leaving them to the adjudication of the courts, and that guidance must be religiously literate.”
The Church of England Newspaper published an editorial last week which suggested the Equality Bill, which was published last month and had its second reading on Monday, was all part of an anti-Christian plot. The full text of this editorial is reproduced below the fold.
I will be reporting here on the progress of the Equality Bill through Parliament, with emphasis on those aspects which are of particular interest from a Church of England viewpoint, as I have reported on many previous items of anti-discrimination legislation.
Those who are looking for more material along the lines of this CEN editorial will find it at such places as the website of the Christian Institute and at the website of Christian Concern for our Nation.
CEN editorial 8 May 2009
Anti-Christian discrimination on the rise
The government had better start building more prison space — for Christians and moral conservatives generally. We are now used to hearing of such folk being sacked and losing their appeals for daring to air any view which criticises or disapproves of gay sex. The new Equality Bill issued by Harriet Harman last week lumps together groups needing special legal status to ensure them against discrimination including disabled people, women and homosexuals, for example. The Bill aims to permeate all society with the requirement that employers in all sectors show they have a percentage of such group in their workforces, in the various echelons of seniority, that their specific requirements are being provided for. The news media focused on the issue of women’s pay and the need to ensure it gains total equality with that of men, and that the figures be published accordingly. The homosexual component was kept very quiet, but is clearly there. The ‘Christian Institute’ website is worth consulting on this issue, at the very least for information on the legal facts.
The extraordinary success of the gay rights campaign in securing a special place for practitioners of gay sex in the legal framework is now moving ahead to suppress any who dissent from their agenda. It seems that the clause inserted into the recent Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill by Lord Waddington, guaranteeing freedom of speech to religious people who disagree with gay sex, has been over turned by a whipped vote in the Commons. So the steady build-up of the gay agenda is accompanied by the steady removal of dissent, even for religious groups. This has all been achieved by the success of making homosexuality a fixed ‘identity’, and removing the focus of discussion from activity. Homosexuals are defined into a legal distinct group, joining minorities similarly defined into existence by government diktat. It should be said that the Anglican Communion, according to its Lambeth Conference of 1998, disagrees with this pseudo-scientific labelling of people, and so do the more intelligent secular commentators, see for example Professor Weeks’ contribution to this secular seminar.
So Christians, and of course Muslims and others who just disagree with the Stonewall line, are being told to shut up and get into their closet — the gays are not tolerant of dissent and have got the state to crackdown. This agenda is also being pursued in schools. Section 28, banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools, has been totally inverted and children are to be educated in the moral neutrality, indeed the moral merit, of gay sex. The Times last week worryingly said that the right of parents to withdraw children, as young as 11, from such sex lessons, was to be stopped. Now churches and mosques up and down the land will not be happy with this, and parents are bound to want to withdraw their youngsters from lessons with a major component of the Stonewall ideology woven into them. A time of persecution is at hand.
I reported in February on the award made by the employment tribunal in the case of John Reaney. See Reaney awarded £47K and also Hereford: Church Times report.
At the time, we all thought that was the end of the matter. But it was not. As I reported in the Church Times last week:
Hereford ends fight against pay-out
by Simon Sarmiento
THE Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance has withdrawn the notice of appeal it filed in March in the employment discrimination case involving John Reaney. Mr Reaney will now receive the full award, exceeding £47,000, directed by a Cardiff employment tribunal in February (News, 15 February).
In July 2007, the tribunal decided that the diocese had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Reaney because of his sexual orientation, when the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Revd Anthony Priddis, refused to confirm his appointment as Diocesan Youth Officer in July 2006 (News, 20 July 2007; News and Comment, 27 July 2007).
The diocese did not appeal against this finding, and said in a statement in February: “We are glad we can draw a line under this unhappy situation.” Nevertheless, in March the diocese filed a notice of appeal against the major portion of the Remedies judgment.
Mr Reaney, who had been employed by the Weston Spirit charity, was made redundant earlier this year, as had been forecast in his submission to the Remedies hearing last December.
Updated Thursday evening
There was a television current affairs programme on Channel 4 last week, in the Dispatches series, entitled In God’s Name. Here’s the Channel 4 blurb about the programme.
If you didn’t see it and want to do so, you can find it on this website.
The film-maker, David Modell wrote a major article for the Sunday Telegraph before the programme aired, which was headlined Christian fundamentalists fighting spiritual battle in Parliament. This Sunday, there were several letters to the editor.
The article and the programme devote considerable space to the activities of the public policy director of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship.
No less a person than Joel Edwards wrote an open letter to Channel 4 about it.
Stephen Green who was also featured, and whom Joel Edwards describes as an extremist, has responded to the programme here. (h/t Louise Ashworth)
Craig Nelson commented about the programme here and also here.
Updates Thursday evening
Simon Barrow has written a detailed analysis of the issues raised by the TV programme for Wardman Wire which you can read at A fundamental problem? Thinking Aloud by Simon Barrow.
In that article he also links to an earlier interview with Andrea Minichiello Williams done by Rachel Harden in the Church Times which I inexplicably forgot to include here earlier.
Ekklesia reports on this in Christian charity found to have discriminated on grounds of religion.
An Employment Tribunal in Abergele has today unanimously found in favour of a former employee of a Christian charity who was claiming constructive dismissal and discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.
The Tribunal heard that Prospects, a Christian charity which receives public money for its work with people with learning disabilities, and which had previously employed a number of non-Christian staff and volunteers – including a number who were transferred to them under TUPE Regulations – acted illegally when in 2004 it began recruiting only practising Christians for almost all posts, and told existing non-Christian staff that they were no longer eligible for promotion.
Mr James Boddy, Barrister from 11 King’s Bench Walk Chambers, representing the claimant Mr Mark Sheridan, declared: “This is an important decision because it is the first time an employment tribunal has been called on to decide the extent to which an organisation with a religious ethos is allowed to discriminate on grounds of religion or belief…”
This story was reported in some detail last December, by Ruth Gledhill in The Times see Christian ‘forced to discrimate’ against non-Christian staff and on her blog at Christian claims discrimination ‘on grounds of religion’.
See also the BHA press release, Tribunal victory for employee in landmark religious discrimination case.
And Simon Barrow’s comments are here.
Simon Barrow, co-director of Ekklesia, said: “This judgement ought to make religious charities sit up and think - not just about their legal responsibilities and the morality of non-discrimination, but about the impact of their behaviour on their image with the public at large.”
He continued: “Leaders and entrepreneurs in many faith organisations seem reluctant to embrace a comprehensive equalities agenda, or to recognise their culpability in issues of discrimination. Yet they are often the first to seek exemptions from legislation accepted by others and to complain that they are being ‘attacked’ when criticisms are raised.”
“The Christian message of love and justice is undermined by poor employment and equalities practices in the Christian organisations. This is an opportunity for the churches to get their house in order.”
Last week, the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered a lecture at the London School of Economics. The title was Religious faith and human rights.
You can read the full text of the lecture here.
Natalie Hanman has written at Comment is free about this lecture. Her article is titled Cross purposes. In the article she asks which comes first: gender equality before the law, or religious liberty?
This article also explains about the current UK legislation imposing a “public sector equality duty” and the proposals to extend this duty into more areas.
My report published in last week’s Church Times is now available to the public: John Reaney awarded £47,000.
John Reaney awarded £47,000
by Simon Sarmiento
An Employment Tribunal in Cardiff published its final judgment last Friday, awarding John Reaney more than £47,000, but made no other recommendations. Last July, Mr Reaney won a case of unlawful discrimination against the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Revd Anthony Priddis (News, 20 July).
The tribunal noted that: “the Respondents have accepted the need to provide equal-opportunity training to all of its individuals who are engaged in a recruitment exercise. Furthermore if a genuine occupational requirement does apply in a particular case then thought will be given by the Respondents to make that clear in any advertisement . . . we are satisfied that these matters have been taken seriously by the Respondents.”
The compensation includes £25,000 for future loss of wages, £8000 for future pension loss, £7000 damages for psychiatric injury, and £6000 for injury to feelings.
Alison Downie, Mr Reaney’s solicitor, said: “Given his comments [in the Temple lecture last week], the Archbishop of Canterbury should ensure that the Church of England and its bishops act in full and complete accordance with UK and European law now — otherwise we are likely to see more discrimination cases against the Church in the future.”Mr Reaney said: “I remain sad that the Church fought my case even after being found to have acted unlawfully. I would much prefer to be working as a Christian within the Church to promote and develop youth work, but was stopped from doing so because I am gay.”
In a press release, the diocese of Hereford said: “We are now aware that, when making such an appointment, we must make it clear if it is a genuine occupational requirement that the post-holder should believe in and uphold the Christian belief and ideal of marriage, and that sexual relationships are confined to marriage. This is the crux of the matter, not sexual orientation.”
A spokesperson for the pressure group Stonewall responded: “The crux of the matter is that discriminating against gay people in employment is unlawful. Let’s hope this is covered in the equal-opportunities training diocesan staff will be attending.”
The LGCM paid advertising supplement to last week’s Church Times also carried an article on the subject, written earlier. PDF file here,see top of page 3 or read html copy here.
Updated Friday evening see Bindmans press release below
Here is the outcome of the Hereford tribunal case as reported by icWales:
Gay Christian wins £47k pay-out
A gay Christian who won a discrimination claim against the Church of England was awarded more than £47,000 in compensation today, the organisation backing him said.
John Reaney, a 42-year-old from North Wales, took the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance to an employment tribunal after his appointment to the role of youth worker was blocked on the grounds of his sexuality by the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis.
Stonewall, the gay equality organisation which funded the claim, said the Diocese of Hereford was today ordered to pay Mr Reaney £47,345.
A spokesman for Stonewall said this included £33,000 for loss of future earnings and £7,000 damages specifically awarded for “psychiatric injury”.
Mr Reaney said: “I’m delighted that this case is finally over. Lesbian and gay Christians working within the Church of England are entitled to be treated with humanity. I’m very grateful to Stonewall for supporting this case throughout.”
Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said: “We’re delighted that the tribunal has sent such a robust signal, both to the bishop and other employers.
“The substantial level of compensation sends out a very clear message. Not even a bishop is above this law.”
According to Stonewall the Bishop’s costs are estimated to be a further £50,000.
Stonewall added that the tribunal had also said it expects the Bishop to undergo equal opportunities training…
Here is the full text of the press release from the Diocese of Hereford:
Diocese of Hereford & the Employment Tribunals Service
February 08th 2008
The Employment Tribunal has issued its final judgment in the case of the diocese of Hereford and Mr. John Reaney. “We are glad we can draw a line under this unhappy situation. It has been a difficult time for all of us involved in the tribunal,” said Anni Holden, spokeswoman for the Diocese of Hereford. “It has been a long drawn out process and we are pleased that it is finally complete.”
The ‘Remedy Hearing’ of the tribunal took place in December following its decision in July 2007. The Employment Tribunal has decided that the Diocese of Hereford is to pay £47,345 to Mr John Reaney. The legal costs of the case to the Diocese are being met by an anonymous donation.
“We are now aware that when making such an appointment we must make it clear if it is a genuine occupational requirement that the post-holder should believe in and uphold the Christian belief and ideal of marriage, and that sexual relationships are confined to marriage”, added Anni Holden. “This is the crux of the matter, not sexual orientation.”
According to this report from Hereford-based 24dash.com:
The total compensation ordered by the tribunal included £25,000 for future loss of wages, £8,000 for future pension loss, £7,000 damages for psychiatric injury, £6,000 for injury to feelings, £1,320 for counselling and £25 for costs incurred seeking work.
Other press coverage:
BBC Gay man wins £47k church payout
North Wales Daily Post Gay Christian wins £47,000 pay-out and later Church must pay out to gay Christian
The Sun Gay Christian’s £47k compo and later Rev’s £47k gay worker snub
Hereford Times Gay man wins Church payout
Daily Mail Gay Christian rejected for post by Bishop awarded almost £50,000 in damages
Daily Telegraph Bishop fined in gay discrimination case
The Times Bishop ordered to have equality training over gay discrimination
Guardian £47,000 for gay youth worker bishop rejected
Ekklesia Bishop faces equal opportunities training after discrimination award
There is a full press release from Bindmans titled Tribunal awards substantial compensation in landmark gay discrimination case against Church of England:
John Reaney wins over £50K compensation and interest
John Reaney v Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance
Cardiff Employment TribunalThe Employment Tribunal has just awarded John Reaney over £50,000 (including interest) as compensation for unlawful discrimination against him by the Diocese and the Bishop of Hereford.
Alison Downie, of Bindman & Partners, lawyer for John Reaney said today:
“The Employment Tribunal has just ordered the Diocese of Hereford to pay substantial damages, over £50,000 including interest, to my client as compensation for the unlawful gay discrimination against him by the Bishop and Diocese of Hereford…
Update added 15 Feb: the Stonewall press release is here: Tribunal orders Bishop of Hereford to pay £47,000 to gay youth worker.
Press release on behalf of Dr. Elaine Storkey surrounding her unfair dismissal from Wycliffe Hall
Issued by Mortimers Solicitors
Following the pre-hearing review in the Reading Employment Tribunal on Monday 7th January Dr. Storkey is very pleased that Wycliffe Hall has acknowledged that she had been dismissed unfairly and has accepted that appropriate compensation is payable.
This was not merely a procedural matter. Dr Storkey brought a claim against the Hall alleging both that procedures were not followed and there were no grounds for dismissal.
The Hall, as Dr Storkey’s employer had alleged that Dr Storkey contributed to her dismissal in that there had been a breakdown of trust as a result of Dr Storkey’s behaviour. This was strongly contested by Dr. Storkey whose contention was that any breakdown of trust and confidence was due to the conduct of the Principal, the failure by the Hall to consider the concerns repeatedly presented by a large number of staff members, and the further failure to properly address her written grievance against the Principal.
Dr. Storkey had raised a formal grievance to the Hall Council, concerning the treatment to which she had been subjected. But that procedure which had been commenced in February 2007 was not concluded, before being prematurely terminated by her dismissal.
At the hearing the Hall formally withdrew the allegations it had previously made against Dr. Storkey and agreed a settlement for this part of her claim which will equate to her salary and benefits until her previously anticipated date of retirement together with a 50% uplift in recognition of its unlawful failure to follow statutory procedures.
The Tribunal, given Dr. Storkey’s intent on pursuing her claim for religious discrimination, has listed the matter for a preliminary issue hearing later in the year. At that hearing the Tribunal will consider whether the religion or belief relied upon by Dr. Storkey which she defines (for this purpose) as ‘open evangelicalism and/or membership of Fulcrum’ constitutes a religion or belief for the purposes of the Employment Equality (Religion of Belief) Regulations 2003 as distinct from conservative evangelicalism.
The Tribunal, expressing some disquiet as to its qualification to determine matters of theology has given the parties leave to adduce independent expert evidence and to call one witness, which they anticipated in the case of Dr. Storkey, given her expertise, would be her.
It is Dr Storkey’s hope that the resolution of these issues will leave Wycliffe Hall in a stronger position to pursue its calling of training people for Christian ministry in a context of truth and good governance.
The case continues.
There is as yet no trace of this press release on the website page that one might logically expect it, but it is to be found here:
Wycliffe Hall press statement regarding Elaine Storkey’s dismissal
January 10th, 20081. At a Pre-Hearing Review in relation to Dr Elaine Storkey’s claims of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination, the College accepted that she had been unfairly dismissed as the College had not, prior to dismissal, gone through the statutory procedures. We are hopeful that a full and amicable settlement can be reached.
2. Nevertheless, we strongly refute any allegation that Elaine’s dismissal from Wycliffe was in any way connected with her religious beliefs. At Wycliffe Hall, our key priority is to equip men and women for modern ministry and this happens in an environment that encourages wide discussion and debate, reflective of the broad range of thinking within the Church as a whole.
3. We look forward to resolving the whole matter as swiftly as possible so that we can concentrate purely on our priorities of maintaining high standards of training, theological teaching and academic excellence at Wycliffe Hall, in equipping men and women fully for modern Christian ministry.
Helen Mitchell
College Administrator
Wycliffe Hall, 54 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6PW
Direct line: +44(0)1865 274201College office: +44(0)1865 274200
College fax: +44(0)1865 274215
www.wycliffe.ox.ac.uk
Updated Friday morning
According to the Daily Telegraph in Church ‘accepts end of blasphemy law’:
The Church of England has signalled that it is prepared to see the abolition of blasphemy offences after the Government announced a review of the ancient law…
… The principle of blasphemy laws dates back to ancient times, but the present common law offence of “blasphemous libel” is based on 19th century court rulings.
In 1838, it was limited to cover only the “tenets and beliefs of the Church of England”.
Yesterday, the Church signalled it could accept abolition. “We are open to the possibility of a review,” said a Church spokesman, urging a “cautious” approach.
It is understood that Church leaders could be willing to back the abolition of blasphemy offences if new laws banning the incitement of religious hatred can provide significant protection for Anglicanism…
The Guardian report on this Ministerial compromise averts backbench revolt over repeal of blasphemy offence says:
…A Church of England spokesman said last night it became clear last year during the debates on the crime of incitement to racial and religious hatred that the church was open to the idea of the blasphemy law being abolished. “But first there has to be adequate time to assess the impact of the new legislation,” he added…
And the Guardian has a leader: An offensive law.
The BBC had Blasphemy law ‘may be abolished’.
Update Friday morning
Rachel Harden has a report in the Church Times Blasphemy report might be repealed.
Updated again Thursday morning
There are reports in both the Daily Telegraph and The Times about this.
Jonathan Petre writing in the Daily Telegraph under the headline Leading theologian sues bishop over ‘bullying’ reports:
One of the Church of England’s best-known theologians is suing the Bishop of Liverpool following a row at an Oxford theological college.
Dr Elaine Storkey, a regular contributor to Radio 4’s Thought for the Day slot, told an employment tribunal in Reading yesterday she had been bullied while a senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall.
She accepted around £20,000 from the trustees of the college after they acknowledged that she had been unfairly dismissed from the post. But the 64-year-old is still seeking a ruling of religious discrimination against the president of the 130-year-old college, Bishop James Jones, over the row…
And Fran Yeoman in The Times adds some further information:
…Bruce Carr, representing the trustees of Wycliffe Hall, acknowledged this version of events, adding: “The respondent accepts that the dismissal of the claimant was unfair.”
Charles Crow, representing Dr Storkey, then turned to the issue of alleged religious discrimination. “Within Christian evangelism there are two strands; conservative evangelism and an open and more liberal evangelism,” he said. “As an open and clear proponent of one of those strands, [Dr Storkey] has been discriminated against.”
Mr Carr rejected that, saying Dr Storkey could not allege discrimination against people of the same faith as her. “She is not saying, ‘I’m being discriminated against because of my Christianity’,” he said. “She is saying, ‘I have a particular type of Christian evangelism.’ To paraphrase, she is the wrong type of evangelical.”
The tribunal has scheduled a further hearing for 10 June, but:
urged both parties to reach an agreement before the full hearing, pointing out the difficulties in attempting to resolve a theological dispute in an employment tribunal.
Update
The Liverpool Echo has picked up this story but has a misleading headline, Bishop of Liverpool sued by BBC (the headline has now changed to: Bishop of Liverpool James Jones caught up in bullying row)
…The case has now been adjourned until June, at which point the three members of an employment tribunal will have to decide whether the Doctor’s evangelical stance constitutes a religion as compared with other evangelists.
Their decision could have far-reaching implications within religious circles.
Dr Storkey has named Bishop James as chairman of Wycliffe Hall’s trustees in her legal action along with and Andrew Dalton, the Hall’s treasurer…
…Today Charles Crow, representing Dr Storkey, said of the outstanding claim. He said: “Within Christian evangelism there are two determinate strands; conservative evangelism and an open and more liberal evangelism.
“Those are open and definable strands and as an open and clear proponent of one of those strands, Dr Storkey has been discriminated against.”
Yesterday (Mon) Bruce Carr, representing the trustees, accepted her dismissal was unfair but claimed Dr Storkey could not allege discrimination against people of the same faith as her…
And Education Guardian has Unfairly sacked Oxford college theologian sues bishop.
Tuesday evening
Ruth Gledhill has blogged about this, see Elaine Storkey: ‘Don’t shoot the heretics.’ Ruth has talked to Elaine, part of what she says is this:
…She told me this afternoon: ‘For me, this never started out as a battle between conservatives and open evangelicals. For me, this was trying to draw attention to the fact that we were unhappy with the style of management at Wycliffe Hall. But as time evolved, it started to feel more theological.
‘I am alarmed at the way big walls between people and groups have started to emerge in the way they did not before. People had nuances and differences, but we all worked well together. From the Fulcrum point of view [Elaine is chairman of Fulcrum], it is not what we are wanting. We want to work with everybody rather than create a new camp.
‘I am alarmed at the belligerence of the conservative camp, where they are seemingly going out of their way to make life as difficult as possible for the Archbishop of Canterbury. I cannot imagine what the reasons are. They are being destructive rather than constructive, finding something to argue about rather than working together to find a fruitful outcome…
Wednesday morning
Oxford Mail Ex-don settles dismissal claim
Independent Fire and brimstone! College principal says we’re all going to hell
Guardian College denies theological vendetta
Thursday morning
Ekklesia has a report, Tearfund president accused of double standards over religious discrimination.
Cambridge Evening News has Presenter in a battle of faith.
My news report on this, published in the Church Times last week, is now available here.
The statement that the diocese issued to me while I was preparing that article was previously published here and is below the fold.
The full context for that statement was unfortunately not included in the Church Times article as published. I reproduce below a longer version of my report.
Priddis now regrets but remains impenitent
THE Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Revd Anthony Priddis, has said he now regrets “a lot of what has happened” in the case of unlawful discrimination against John Reaney. He lost the case (News, 20 July), but he has not changed his opinion, he said last Friday.
Bishop Priddis said in a witness statement: “I am very sorry for all the hurt and pain my decision not to appoint [him] has caused”, but he went on: “my opinion was, and still is, that at the time of the interview [he] did not have sufficient stability of life to give the assurances the Tribunal have found I was entitled to require of him.”
An employment tribunal at Cardiff last week adjourned before deciding on financial compensation and other remedies, which the parties had failed to agree privately in the four months since judgment was given in July. During the hearing, the chairman repeatedly urged the parties to seek agreement. No decision will now be issued until at least mid-January. A Stonewall spokesman said afterwards: “It is deeply regrettable that John has been forced to come back to endure further unnecessary cross-examination, which has been deeply distressing”.
Counsel for the diocese interrogated Mr Reaney as to why he did not apply for two similar posts recently advertised by Worcester and Guildford dioceses. Mr Reaney said that he lacked the confidence to seek any other church position after the way the bishop had treated him.
When asked whether or not the diocese would in future insert a reference to the employment regulations in its advertising, the bishop was hesitant: “We wouldn’t want to be in a position where we discourage people of homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation to apply for posts”. Later a diocesan spokesperson explained: “Given the judgement of the tribunal the only “safe” option to avoid future discrimination claims is for the Diocese to express a Genuine Occupational Requirement… This we do not wish to do… We are therefore seeking advice on how we can maintain the teachings of the Church without transgressing the law.”
The bishop took strong exception to adverse press reports, saying: “The media attention has, in my opinion, made matters worse for myself, the claimant and the Church of England as a whole.” He insisted the coverage had been “driven by Stonewall” particularly the Bigot of the Year Award. He said: “when they make derogatory statements about me personally, then that’s clearly hurtful to me”. Responding to this, Stonewall said: “The only person responsible for the media coverage is the bishop himself, who was found to have acted unlawfully”.
Here is what the Diocese of Hereford told me on Tuesday 11 December when I asked them to clarify the comments made by the Bishop of Hereford at the employment tribunal hearing in Cardiff on Friday 7 December:
“Given the judgement of the tribunal the only “safe” option to avoid future discrimination claims is for the Diocese to express a Genuine Occupational Requirement and claim exemption from the Sexual Orientation Regulation 2003.
This we do not wish to do as we wish to encourage people of any sexual orientation to play a full part in the life of the Church and to apply for all Diocesan posts.
However, we also require those in leadership positions within the Diocese, and the DYO is such a position, to uphold, support and promote the doctrine of the Church of England. We are therefore seeking advice on how we can maintain the teachings of the Church without transgressing the law.”
Here is what the Diocese of Hereford told me on Tuesday 11 December when I asked them to clarify the comments made by the Bishop of Hereford at the employment tribunal hearing in Cardiff on Friday 7 December:
“Given the judgement of the tribunal the only “safe” option to avoid future discrimination claims is for the Diocese to express a Genuine Occupational Requirement and claim exemption from the Sexual Orientation Regulation 2003.
This we do not wish to do as we wish to encourage people of any sexual orientation to play a full part in the life of the Church and to apply for all Diocesan posts.
However, we also require those in leadership positions within the Diocese, and the DYO is such a position, to uphold, support and promote the doctrine of the Church of England. We are therefore seeking advice on how we can maintain the teachings of the Church without transgressing the law.”
The Church Times has a story on this, Priddis ‘sorry for hurt’, but it is only available to subscribers at present.
The employment tribunal hearing last week in the case of John Reaney and the Diocese of Hereford adjourned without the Remedies being settled. The tribunal chairman said it would be at least mid-January before judgment would be given. That’s yet another month’s delay in a case which started over a year ago.
Some press reports:
BBC Gay row bishop ‘sorry for pain’
Wales News Bishop hurt by ‘derogatory’ comments, and in the Western Mail next day Bishop regrets gay case distress.
And in today’s Guardian, Stephen Bates has a piece in the People column.
The Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council and the Department for Christian Responsibility and Citizenship of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales have issued a joint statement.
This statement has been issued with a press release titled Churches comment on Government’s incitement to hatred plans which starts:
The Church of England and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales have commented on the Government’s proposed amendment to the Public Order Act 1986 to create a new offence of incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation….
Scroll down from the press release to read the full text of the Memorandum to the Public Bill Committee on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
A Christian magistrate who was told he could not opt out of homosexual adoption cases has lost his appeal.
Having lost an initial hearing at an employment tribunal in Sheffield earlier in 2007, Mr McClintock took his case against the Department for Constitutional Affairs to appeal in London.
However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Department for Constitutional Affairs had not acted unlawfully and that Mr McClintock had not suffered discrimination on grounds of his religious beliefs.
Mr McClintock intends to appeal this decision.
You can read the full judgement of the appeal tribunal as a PDF file. Here is the official summary:
The appellant was a Justice of the Peace. He sat on the Family Panel which, inter alia, places children for adoption. He objected to the possibility that he might be required to place a child with a same sex couple. The reason he gave was that he considered that there was insufficient evidence that this was in the child’s best interests and he felt that children should not be treated like guinea pigs in the name of politically correct legislation.
He asked to be relieved from hearing cases which might raise these issues. Representatives of the respondent refused to allow this and he resigned from the Family Panel. He complained that this was both direct and indirect discrimination and harassment, contrary to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
The Tribunal found that on the facts there was no unlawful conduct of any kind. He had not indicated that his objections were rooted in any religious or philosophical belief. There was in fact no direct or indirect discrimination for religious or philosophical reasons, nor any evidence of harassment. Even if there were a criterion adversely impacting on the appellant, the respondent was justified in requiring him to carry out the full duties of the office in accordance with his judicial oath.
The EAT rejected the appeal. The case was dismissed largely on the facts, but in addition the Tribunal was fully entitled to find that any indirect discrimination was justified.
Press coverage of the decision:
BBC Gay couple adoption appeal lost
Daily Telegraph Jonathan Petre Magistrate loses gay adoption appeal
Religious Intelligence Nick McKenzie Christian Magistrate to appeal after losing tribunal case
The Christian Institute and the LCF-sponsored CCFON are both unhappy, see here and here.
A report in the Times Higher Education Supplement tells about the advice given to its members by Council of Church Colleges and Universities (CCCU).
See Academia checks on faith in The Times:
Advice from the Council of Church Colleges and Universities tells universities to mention their Christian ethos in employment contracts so that staff who “openly flout” their ideals can be said to be in breach of contract.
It is thought that the rules are most likely to affect senior staff, chaplains and teachers of theology.
“If an employee acts in a way that is detrimental to the employer, by openly flouting the ethos . . . it may be possible to conclude that there has been a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence,” the advice adds…
And also Universities told how to use Christianity to sack staff on Ekklesia:
…But Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said that the advice was deeply disturbing.
“This report obliquely suggests ways of ensuring that some positions are not held by those whose lifestyle is at odds with some Christian doctrine, presumably in terms of sexual orientation, attitudes to abortion and maybe even to marriage”, the Times reports…
Yesterday the UK Government announced in Parliament that it would table an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to extend the offence of incitement to racial hatred to cover hatred against persons on the basis of their sexuality.
The Government have a strong record of promoting equality and of tackling discrimination and bigotry in all its guises. We have strengthened the sentencing framework, so that sentences can be increased where race, religion, disability or sexual orientation are aggravating factors. We have also introduced legislation to outlaw the stirring up of religious hatred, as my hon. Friend reminded the House. We have received many representations on the matter, and I am pleased to say that we will propose a further step to strengthen the protection afforded to homosexual people. It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the last 10 years that we are all now appalled by hatred and invective directed against gay people, and it is now time for the law to recognise the feeling of the public. In Committee, we will table an amendment to extend the offence of incitement to racial hatred to cover hatred against persons on the basis of their sexuality. Homophobic abuse, lyrics and literature are every bit as abhorrent to those concerned as material inciting hatred based on race or religion, and have no place in our communities.
Media reporting of this today gives some prominence to objections from religious groups:
The Times Inciting hatred against gays could lead to 7 years in prison and yesterday before the announcement, Christians fear jail for criticising gays
Daily Telegraph Seven years jail for gay hate preachers
Guardian Straw moves to ban incitement against gays
Daily Mail New law means anti-gay comments could lead to seven years in jail
Daily Express JAIL THREAT TO VICARS UNDER GAY HATE LAW
BBC Plans to outlaw inciting gay hate
According to the Daily Mail (no other paper mentioned this):
Last night a CofE spokesman said: “We will be scrutinising any legislation to ensure that it safeguards the safety and rights of minorities without jeopardising wider concerns for freedom of expression, including the expression of religious faith.”
Update
The Christian Institute is already on the case, see Gospel freedom threatened by homosexual hate crime.
More Updates
The text of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act is here.
The Evangelical Alliance had this to say about it.
Last week’s Church Times contained a comment article written by me and titled Discrimination: a lost opportunity.
For previous Church Times coverage of the Archbishops’ Council response, see here. For the original response to the Discrimination Law Review, go here.
The Hereford Times has reported: Diocese will not appeal.
THE Diocese of Hereford will not appeal against a tribunal’s ruling that the bishop, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, discriminated against a gay job applicant.
An appeal is not being planned due to the high cost and length of time it would be expected to take, the diocese confirmed this week.
Diocesan spokesperson Anni Holden said: “We have taken legal advice and decided against appealing.
“Appeals can take several years and cost a lot of money. We are looking to the remedy hearing in December.”
During the remedy hearing it will be decided how much compensation youth worker John Reaney will receive…
I reported earlier about the Church of England’s response to the government review of current legislation.
Today, the Church Times has both a news article and a leader column about the response.
News: C of E queries Government’s new ideas for equality laws (this also includes a report of the Northern Ireland judicial review of SORs).
Leader: My right’s better.
On the Northern Ireland judicial review, Jonathan Petre had this in the Daily Telegraph: Judge squashes part of UK gay rights laws.
On the government consultation, the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales have also filed a response. It can be found here.
The Courts Service of Northern Ireland has now published the full text of yesterday’s judgement by Mr Justice Weatherup.
The document can be read as an html page here.
The BBC reports on the outcome of the judicial review of The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006:
New legislation banning discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals is lawful with just one exception, a High Court judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Weatherup said harassment provisions in the Sexual Orientation Regulations must be removed…
…The judgement followed a five-day hearing last June when the Christian Institute and numerous churches applied for a judicial review of the regulations which they claimed were a “gay rights charter.”
… The regulations came into force last January when former secretary of state Peter Hain was accused of rushing the powers into law by limiting consultation to six weeks whereas people in the rest of the United Kingdom were given six months to examine the controversial issues.
It was on the consultation ground that Mr Justice Weatherup said the harassment provisions had to be set aside.
A harassment clause was not included in the corresponding regulations for Great Britain, as the topic was to be considered as part of the wide-ranging Discrimination Law Review. (The consultation period following that review has just closed, see here.)
The Evangelical Alliance issued a press release saying:
The Evangelical Alliance is encouraging Christians to respond respectfully and in a Christ-like manner to the decision made in today’s judicial review of Northern Ireland’s Sexual Orientation Regulations that banning discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals is lawful with one exception.
The Alliance welcomes the fact that a number of Christian organisations were able to exercise their right to call for the review. It also welcomes the removal of the harassment clause and particularly of the judge’s confirmation that the regulations do not apply to the core school curriculum. But it is also praying that following the decision, Christians’ rights do not appear bigger than their representation of Christ or their commitment to the rights of others.
For an alternative interpretation of the decision, see the Christian Institute’s press release.
Updated again Saturday
The Archbishops’ Council has issued a response, available here as an RTF file, to the UK government’s consultation paper, A Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain.
The consultation paper, which can be found as a large PDF file via this link, sets out the government’s proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain. These proposals were developed as a result of the Discrimination Law Review, launched in February 2005 to consider the opportunities for creating a clearer and more streamlined discrimination legislative framework which produces better outcomes for those who currently experience disadvantage.
A Church of England press release about the response can be found here.
Ekklesia has reported on this, see Church of England concerned that equality bill will reduce its influence. Here is the concluding part of that report:
…The response claims that the Church of England has been consistent in its support for the use of the law to combat the manifestations of prejudice and to promote equality and fairness since the introduction of the first anti-discrimination legislation more than forty years ago.
But critics say that the Church has used its unelected representatives in the House of Lords and its lobbying muscle elsewhere to oppose or seek to water down equalities legislation and regulations, particularly in relation to sexual orientation. The desire for ‘opt-outs’ has also been challenged.
While many church groups have opposed the new Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs), the evangelical Faithworks network has called on Christians to recognise the need for equal treatment in spite of moral disagreement.
Simon Barrow, co-director of the independent Christian think tank Ekklesia, commented: “The comprehensive and integrated equalities agenda across Britain’s public institutions is no threat to freedom of religion or tolerance. On the contrary, equal treatment is a cornerstone of fair access and open expression for all - including people of faith and those of non-religious outlook.”
He added: “It is sad that some faith organisations seem fearful of equal rights, especially when it applies to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons. But there is a clear distinction to be made between the moral stipulations of a community of commitment, and the obligation on public institutions to ensure fair treatment. Religious bodies do not have to take public money, run schools and work in cooperation with community and public services. But if they do so, they need to occupy the same level playing field as others.”
Ekklesia argues that the churches need to pay more attention to the “radically egalitarian” strand of the Gospel message in developing their response to public policy, rather than defending their institutional interests over and against others.
Jonathan Petre reports on this at the Daily Telegraph: Church fears lawsuits over gay rights. He says in part:
…The Church of England, in its official submission to the Government’s consultation on the Bill, said the proposed harassment laws were unnecessary.
If such legislation was introduced, however, it would be “crucial” to ensure that a religion’s followers, and not just clergy, could continue “to express the views of their faith about homosexual conduct, including challenging people to lead lives consistent with the teaching of the Church.
“To deny Christians (and followers of other faiths which take a similar view) such a right would amount to an unjustified interference with the right to manifest religious belief.”
The Church added that the proposals “should not prevent church schools from continuing to teach in accordance with such a school’s religious ethos.”
Government plans to extend the same harassment laws to religion and belief were also criticised.
The Church said it could lead to people objecting to religious symbols such as crosses on hospital walls on the grounds that they were an affront to atheists.
It added that the proposals were in danger of undermining religious freedom.
“We have been concerned at what has seemed in some recent debates to be a trend towards regarding religion and belief as deserving of a lesser priority in discrimination legislation than the other strands where the law seeks to bring protection,” it said.
Religion and belief seemed to be treated as subordinate to other rights because they were deemed to be a personal choice, but this was “a false analysis”, it continued.
“Nor is religious equality achieved by the elimination of expressions of religious belief in public institutions such as schools or local authorities.
“This does not amount to, or achieve, equal respect for different religious groups and those of no religion; rather it amounts to an enforced secularism that fails to respect religious belief at all.”
Steve Doughty in the Daily Mail has Church of England: Labour’s equality law denies Christians right to oppose homosexuality.
Updated Monday
My Church Times articles published in last week’s paper edition are now available on the web:
Priddis loses, but sticks to his guns
Quotes from the bishop:
Talking to the Church Times last week, the Bishop said that he had consulted the diocesan registrar on four separate occasions during the course of the recruitment, and believed he had followed the advice given. He was therefore surprised at the tribunal’s judgment, which, he said, was puzzling and in some ways inconsistent. A particular concern to him was that it felt able to override his own pastoral judgement, based on 35 years’ experience.
He awaited further advice from the lawyers on whether to appeal, but he also needed them to advise on changes to diocesan procedures to avoid future problems. “I am disappointed that the judgment spends so much time focusing on the 1991 House of Bishops teaching document Issues in Human Sexuality, and so little on the more important decision of General Synod in 1987.”
The Bishop insisted that in rejecting Mr Reaney he was upholding the 1987 teaching of the General Synod that “holiness of life is particularly required of Christian leaders,” which was not limited to the clergy.
Why this constitutes illegal discrimination
My concluding paragraphs:
The tribunal found the facts of this case so compelling that it found in Mr Reaney’s favour without needing to rely on the discriminatory nature of the underlying Church of England policy of “marriage or abstinence”. The marker laid down here, however, and the inherent difficulty of proving justification, suggests that any future case might well succeed in a claim of indirect discrimination.
On the other hand, the ease with which this tribunal accepted that this officer-level post fell within the ambit of the religious exemption will be of concern to those who had imagined that only top-level lay employees in dioceses and at the National Church Institutions were affected.
Last Tuesday’s edition of The Times carried a profile of the barrister who represented John Reaney. Sandhya Drew said this about the case:
What were the main challenges in this case and the implications of the decision?
The challenges were having to deal with the culture of fear and concealment surrounding sexual orientation in the Church of England. What was very striking, however, was the amount of support for John Reaney from Christians of all sexual orientations, not only within the Church of England but within the Diocese of Hereford itself. The main implication of the decision is that organised religions should not assume that they can rely on an exemption from the law against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay people of faith make a significant contribution to all the leading world religions and the law will protect them where necessary.
Update Monday
The case is cited in an article in Personnel Today Weekly dilemma: Job interviews.
The Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship has published its opinions on the tribunal judgment.
Although it is not yet visible on the LCF website, or even on the Christian Concern for our Nation website, it can be found at Anglican Mainstream.
Further Analysis of the Bishop of Hereford case (scroll down to get to the start of the full text of the document).
This week’s Church Times has three items about the Hereford tribunal case.
Two of them are subscriber only until next week, but for the benefit of subscribers here are the links:
Priddis loses, but sticks to his guns (this is a revision of my earlier article with new quotes from the bishop after I interviewed him last week).
Why this constitutes illegal discrimination in which I set out how the employment tribunal found against the Bishop of Hereford.
The third item is by Giles Fraser: The split of orientation and practice helps none.
Some time ago, we reported on the attack by Coherent and Cohesive Voice against the Sexual Orientation Regulations.
The Advertising Standards Authority finally published its adjudication of the 51 complaints that it had received about this. It upheld 3 of the 10 distinct issues raised by the complainants.
We concluded that the ad exaggerated the effect of the proposed regulations and was likely to mislead readers of The Times. We considered that although a parliamentarian readership would be likely to be aware of the content of the proposed SORs, the claims exaggerated their effect. We concluded that the ad was likely to mislead readers.
On these points, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
Updated
The radio programme Sunday contains a substantial item on the Hereford tribunal. Both Richard Kirker and Bishop Priddis are interviewed by Roger Bolton.
Bishop of Hereford and gay discrimination
Richard Kirker of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement believes the Bishop of Hereford should resign. His remark followed an employment tribunal ruling that the Bishop discriminated against John Reaney, a candidate for a position as a youth minister in his diocese, on the basis of his sexual orientation.Reaney had held youth officer positions in Norwich and in Chester dioceses, but left his post in Chester early in 2006 [sic] after his relationship with another gay man had come to light. He told his interviewing panel in Hereford that he was gay, although now celibate, and the panel recommended to the Bishop that he should be given the job as youth minister. The Bishop was needed to give final approval, and after meeting Mr Reaney and discussing his sexuality, the Bishop refused to do so.
As a result John Reaney took the Bishop to an industrial tribunal. His claim that he had been harassed was not upheld, but his claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was. Richard Kirker and the Bishop both talked to Sunday.
Listen (8m 57s)
A transcript of the interview with Bishop Priddis can be found here.
Note: the mention of the year 2006 above is incorrect. Mr Reaney left Chester in 2002.
LGCM issued a press release: Gay Christian Triumphs in Battle Against Bigoted Church.
Changing Attitude issued a press release: Diocese of Hereford loses discrimination case against gay Christian youth leader.
The National Secular Society issued Bigoted bishop gets egg on his face.
The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association said BISHOP OF HEREFORD SHOULD HANG HIS HEAD IN SHAME.
The Lawyers Christian Fellowship said (link to site currently broken now fixed):
“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.”
The Christian Institute said:
In an astonishing judgment, an employment tribunal has ruled that an Anglican Bishop was wrong to refuse employment to a gay youth worker. It is not known whether the Bishop will appeal.
Yesterday’s Church Times carries my report on the case, but only on the website, as the paper edition went to press before the announcement was made. See Gay youth worker was discriminated against, tribunal rules.
The full judgment of the employment tribunal in the case of John Reaney v the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance has been placed online by the Diocese of Hereford. It’s a 1.2 MB pdf file made up from scans of a fax so it’s not of the highest quality, but it is legible.
Update an html copy of this can at present be found here. (This URL will likely be replaced in the next day or so.)
An amended html copy is now available here. (Many thanks to pluralist for scanning the original PDF.)
The Times Nicola Woolcock Youth worker wins gay job rights claim against bishop.
Daily Telegraph Jonathan Petre Bishop discriminated against gay youth worker.
Guardian Stephen Bates Bishop urged to resign after diocese loses gay bias case.
Daily Mail Rebecca Camber Gay Christian wins job tribunal against Church of England.
Western Mail Darren Devine Church faces payout over gay discrimination case and also Hailed as a victory for gay rights – here is reaction to yesterday’s tribunal decision.
And the BBC report linked yesterday has links to two video clips: these contain quotes from the bishop at yesterday’s press conference in Hereford, a short interview with Mr Reaney, plus other footage from the time of the Cardiff hearing.
Update The Hereford Times today has Bishop loses in gay worker case:
…The crux of the Bishop’s decision rested on a five-year gay relationship which Mr Reaney had ended four months before the interview.
Despite Mr Reaney’s promises of celibacy and self-control, the Bishop believed the situation would change.
The Bishop told the press conference he was “disappointed” with the outcome but insisted his decision was the right one and was not clouded by lifestyle.
“He had been living in a committed same-sex relationship for five years and that ended shortly before I met him,” he said at a press conference.
“I took the view that anyone who has been in a committed relationship of that kind for five years will be in a position of loss, grief and bereavement.
“If he had been a heterosexual person with a five-year relationship outside marriage then I still wouldn’t have appointed him because that’s not the teaching of the Church.”
Update Thursday evening: here’s one I missed earlier. The Hereford Journal had:
Bishop’s blessing as gay organists ‘wed’
As he awaits a landmark tribunal decision after turning down a homosexual man for a job, the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, has congratulated a Cathedral organist on his forthcoming gay wedding.Hereford’s assistant organist Peter Dyke is set to tie the knot in a civil partnership ceremony with former church director of music Shaun Ward, at the city’s Town Hall.
An opponent of the C of E developing a formal Christian ceremony to bless gay couples in church,the Bishop has “offered his congratulations” to the couple.
A diocesan spokesman said: “Our eminent organist Peter Dyke has chosen to enter into a civil partnership.
The Bishop joins others in offering them his congratulations…”
The Archbishops’ Council has issued a Statement on Judgement of Employment Tribunal between Mr John Reaney and the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance:
A spokesman for the Archbishops’ Council said:
“The broader issue raised by this case is whether there are posts, including some non clergy posts, where the religious exemptions permitted under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations can properly be applied by bishops and dioceses. The Tribunal has helpfully confirmed that there are. It also held that the role of Diocesan Youth Officer is such a post, though on the specific facts before it - and in particular Mr Reaney’s assurance that he would continue to live a life consistent with the teaching of the Church - concluded that the bishop had taken the wrong decision.
“The regulations will continue to provide important protection for churches and other religious organisations in ensuring that their recruitment policies can reflect the organisation’s beliefs.”
Notes
A statement from the Diocese of Hereford is available here.
Press Statement by the Diocese of Hereford:
TRIBUNAL DECISION IS MIXED BLESSING FOR CHURCH
The Employment Tribunal in which the Board of Finance of the Diocese of Hereford, was accused of Sexual Discrimination has issued its judgement. The Tribunal found in favour of the plaintiff, accepting that the Diocese did discriminate against Mr. John Reaney in not appointing him to the post of Youth Officer within the Diocese.
Commenting after receiving the Tribunal’s Judgement, The Bishop of Hereford, Anthony Priddis, who gave evidence at the hearing, said he was disappointed but not completely down. “The Tribunal accepted that I did not ‘interrogate’ Mr Reaney and that I had acted in accordance with the teachings of the Church of England. It also recognised that the post of Diocesan Youth Officer falls within the small number of posts outside of the clergy which are within the religious exemptions of the
Sexual Discrimination ActEmployment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.”The House of Bishops teaching document “Issues in Human Sexuality” spells out in some detail the General Synod statements that the Church upholds the teaching that sexual relationships belong within marriage and that this high standard to which all people are called is especially expected of those in leadership within the Church.
That policy was endorsed by a General Synod motion of 1987, the Lambeth Conference of 1998 and the House of Bishop’s teaching document “Issues in Sexuality”. That policy, to which the Bishop of Hereford fully subscribes, is that those of homosexual orientation are wholly welcome and entitled to participate in the full life of the Church of England
It is the duty of every Bishop to uphold spiritual, moral and ethical standards and the Tribunal agreed. However, in the light of the tribunal decision the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance will now again look at its recruitment literature to make clear the teaching and requirements of the church in respect of the lifestyle of those in leadership roles.
In the light of the Tribunal decision, the Board of Finance will be taking further legal advice with a view to appeal.
The references above to “Sexual Discrimination” and to the “Sexual Discrimination Act” are what the press release says. They would appear to be errors. The case relates to the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.
The second reference has now been corrected on the diocesan website.
The Employment Tribunal in Cardiff will formally publish its judgment tomorrow in the case of John Reaney v the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance.
TA’s previous report on this was in April: see Hereford case: hearing concludes and my Church Times article is here: Reaney judgment awaited.
Subsequently, the following article was published in the Hereford diocesan magazine: DIOCESE AWAITS YOUTH OFFICER TRIBUNAL DECISION.
Today, the Hereford Times carries this report:
Bishop of Hereford loses case
By Mark BowenA gay man has won his discrimination case against the Bishop of Hereford.
John Reaney,who was backed by gay rights group Stonewall, is celebrating today’s (Thursday) employment tribunal decision.
Mr Reaney was interviewed by a panel of eight people for the post of Youth Officer in the Diocese of Hereford last summer.
But an unanimous decision to appoint him was blocked by the Bishop of Hereford after a meeting Mr Reaney looks set to secure substantial compensation.
In its judgement, the Tribunal said: The Respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual orientation.The case will now be listed for a remedy hearing.’
John Reaney said: ‘I’m delighted that the Bishop of Hereford has lost this case. It demonstrates to many lesbian and gay Christians working for God within the Church of England that they are entitled to fair and respectful treatment.”
The case was heard over four days in Cardiff in April.
The diocese called a press conference for 9.30 am. More information about that will be published here when received.
Meanwhile, Mr Reaney’s solicitors have published this press release:John Reaney wins case against Church of England:
…His solicitor Alison Downie, partner at Bindman & Partners said:
“My client is pleased that he has won his claim. The Bishop and the Diocese were wrong and unlawfully discriminated against him because he is a gay man in refusing to appoint an excellent candidate to the post of Youth Officer. 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. It is highly regrettable that the Bishop acted as he did and that my client lost a year of his life in bringing this claim to right the wrong done to him”.
And Stonewall Cymru has published this one: Stonewall Cymru celebrates tribunal victory against Bishop of Hereford:
…Matthew Batten, Stonewall Cymru’s Policy Officer, said: ‘This outcome is a triumph for 21st century decency over 19th century prejudice. We’re very happy for John. 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.’
And the BBC reports the decision as Bishop loses gay employment case:
…The Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, said he was “naturally disappointed” and may appeal…
…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”.
Press Association report: Gay man wins Church tribunal claim
For the diocesan press release go here.
I previously drew attention to a page from the UK Department of Communities and Local Government, with links to guidance booklets.
There are now two further pages from the same department:
The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) website carries this: Press briefing by Archbishop Peter Akinola on Sunday 13th May at the end of the Abuja Diocesan Synod.
In addition to various comments on Nigerian matters, he also gives his views on legislative developments in the USA and on the Hereford tribunal case in the UK:
Many people look to the USA as a Christian country and its leaders often assume the role of moral leaders for the world who are ready to point the finger at problems around the globe and yet we must not forget that there is another side to their story. The present generation of Americans would do well to remember their own history. While they and their forebears claim their nation to be a gift from God it is in truth a land forcefully taken with no respect for the human rights of the despised and dispossessed Indians – it is also a land where a great deal of its early economic foundation was built on the sweat and blood of de-humanized African slaves.
Americans seem to have forgotten the same LORD in whom they say “In God we trust”. Deuteronomy 7 and 8 are relevant biblical passages
“And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth” 8:18a“Then it shall be, if you by any means forget the LORD your God, and follow other gods, and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day that you shall surely perish.” 8: 19
The God who has blessed so abundantly is also a jealous God who requires obedience and holy living. But instead of calling for obedience to the Word of God we now have the situation where those who call for faithfulness in holy matrimony or abstinence outside of it risk being accused of hate speech. The breakdown in marriages in the USA is a scandal. It is causing a massive crisis in their own society and the rest of the world. But instead of admitting the problem and finding creative ways to strengthen traditional families we see a relentless promotion and protection of so called ‘alternative lifestyles.’ Recent legislative bill H.R. 1592 (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007) passed in the House on May 3rd 2007, and the H.R 2015 (Employment Non-Discrimination Act.) being discussed are worthy of note. God will not be mocked.
We see a similar crisis in the UK. The decline in marriages and the breakdown in families has become an epidemic. But instead of encouraging holy living and strengthening family life we read of a bishop of the Church of England called before tribunal to explain his refusal to hire a certain youth worker. His offence was ‘discrimination’, we were told because the job seeker in this case was a self-confessed homosexual and who said he had just ended a five-year homosexual relationship. Surely the Church has an obligation to promote holy living not apologise for it!
- Where is the Christian voice in all these?
- Why are Church leaders not concerned about this breakdown in society?
- Why are they ashamed of promoting holy living?
- Why have they lost their confidence in the Word of God?
We are very much aware of the challenges that face us today in Nigeria. Many of these we addressed in our Synod and continue to do so day by day. Our hope is in the Lord – the maker of heaven and earth - and in His Holy Word.
We call on Christians worldwide to rise to the challenge of protecting our Christian: -
- Freedom to read the Bible privately and in public
- Freedom to preach from the Bible, and declare uncompromisingly the total oracles of the Lord
- Freedom to shield ourselves, and our children, from what we believe our God says is immoral and abominable.
- Freedom to seek to help those willing to escape Satan’s deceitful traps.
- Freedom to live holy and acceptable lives in the sight of God
The issue here is not about homophobia. We are concerned about defending the right to existence of Biblical Christianity. It is about allowing the Spirit of God to transform people rather than deceive them that there is nothing wrong in their unholy practices. It is about rejecting a world system that wants to curtail our freedom to live as our Saviour taught us to. It is simply trying our best to live and encourage others to live to be HOLY as our GOD IS HOLY.
May the Lord keep us Holy.
hat tip Jim Naughton who comments here.
The UK Department of Communities and Local Government has published guidance documents relating to the two sets of Equality Act regulations that came into force on Monday 30 April.
Guidance on New Measures to Outlaw Discrimination on Grounds of Religion or Belief
This document gives guidance on Part 2 of the Equality Act 2006, which comes into effect on 30 April 2007. Part 2 prohibits discrimination against a person because of their religion or belief (including lack of religion or belief) when providing goods, facilities, services, public functions, or education, and in management and disposal of premises. The guidance sets out the effect of the law and the exceptions provided. The most significant exceptions allow charities and other organisations whose purpose is related to religion or belief to serve particular communities. There are also exceptions in public functions, including education.
The booklet can be downloaded as a PDF file here.
This document provides guidance on the practical effects of Part 3 of the Equality Act 2006, which comes into force on 30th April, 2007. Part 3 outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education, the disposal and management of premises and in the exercise of public functions. The guidance sets out the effect of the law and the exemptions provided.
The booklet can be downloaded as a PDF file here.
Religious beliefs give no right to discriminate against gays is the title of an article in The Times today, written by David Pannick QC. This article is concerned with the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. (PDF of print version here.)
Mr Pannick is a barrister at Blackstone Chambers and a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. He writes a fortnightly column for The Times Law section.
Part of what he says:
…The regulations do not prevent anyone from believing whatever they like for whatever reason they wish. But although freedom of belief is absolute, freedom to manifest belief is strictly limited. This was confirmed by the law lords last year when rejecting the claim of the schoolgirl who wanted to wear a particular form of religious dress in defiance of the school uniform policy.
The right not to be discriminated against on the ground of sexual orientation is a fundamental right, any interference with which requires substantial justification. That the discriminator is acting by reference to his or her religious beliefs cannot of itself provide a justification, any more than if the provider of the services (perhaps Boers who emigrated from South Africa after the National Party lost power) have a religious objection to dealing with people of a different race.
No doubt the State should interfere with the manifestation of the religious beliefs of others only where that is justified. But the religious objector is entitled to no special protection in this respect. If I run an adoption agency and believe that it is wrong for children to be adopted by homosexuals, the fact that my views are based on logic, careful study of reports, and an expertise in child psychology cannot make my beliefs less entitled to respect than if they are based on a belief that God told Moses or Muhammad the right answer…
Dave Walker has drawn attention to this Church Times advertisement in his blog article, Top job in the Anglican Communion up for grabs.
It appears that this is not a job for which any Genuine Occupational Requirement applies, either for Religion or Belief or for Sexual Orientation.
See also Diversity is the Key (H/T Hugh).
Updated 27 April
The employment tribunal hearing of the discrimination case against the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance concluded on Monday in a long hearing that went from 10.20 am to 6.30 pm.
Judgement was reserved and will not be published for several weeks.
The day’s events attracted some press coverage:
Western Mail Church in a ‘shambles’ over homosexuality, says Synod member and an earlier version Church stand on homosexuality ‘a shambles’ with longer quotes.
BBC Judgement reserved at tribunal and Church’s gay policy ‘shambles’.
Norwich Evening News City diocese joins gay tribunal row and Norfolk Eastern Daily Press Anglican attitude to gays attacked.
Coventry Telegraph Bishop facing ‘gay bias’ claim.
My own report is due to appear in the Church Times on Friday. Last week’s report by Bill Bowder is here: Bishop: No extra-marital sex for leaders.
Press releases:
For the Claimant: John Reaney’s claim against the Diocese of Hereford closed today
For the Respondent: STATEMENT FROM THE DIOCESE OF HEREFORD…
Update The Church Times carried this report of mine on 20 April, Reaney judgment awaited. A copy of this article is reproduced below.
Reaney judgment awaited by Simon Sarmiento Church Times 20 April 2007
The employment tribunal completed its hearing of John Reaney’s discrimination claim against the diocese of Hereford on Monday (News, 13 April).
It heard, among other things, that the Church of England had “no firm position on homosexuality”. It then said that judgment would be reserved for several weeks.
Sue Johns, who has been a member of the General Synod for the diocese of Norwich since 1990, gave evidence in support of Mr Reaney. She had known him since 1997, when he became a youth officer in her diocese. The Church could not afford to lose the work of a man of his calibre, she said.
Noting that the Synod had never debated Issues in Human Sexuality (CHP, 1991), on which the Bishop of Hereford had relied earlier in the tribunal, she referred to documents from the General Synod sessions in February, as evidence of the current approach in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. These included the Archbishop of Canterbury’s presidential address, the House of Bishops background note (GS Misc 842B) for the debate on lesbian and gay Christians, and the resolution passed by the Synod.
Mrs Johns told the tribunal: “The Church of England has no consistency and no firm position on homosexuality. In addition, there are vast differences from one parish to another.”
Counsel for both sides then presented submissions, and were questioned by the tribunal chairman. Most facts in the case are undisputed, and it turns largely on the interpretation of the religious-exemption clause in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, which make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal (News, 5 April), and also on the identification of a “comparator” for testing the question of discrimination.
Counsel for the diocese insisted that the only correct comparison should be with an unmarried heterosexual man who declared that he had recently left a long-term sexual relationship. The Bishop had said that such a person would be subjected to exactly the same requirement of abstention from sexual activity as was Mr Reaney.
Counsel also argued that it was reasonable for the Bishop not to be satisfied with the undertakings given by Mr Reaney: that he would abstain, and would consult the Bishop if his circumstances changed.
Counsel for Mr Reaney argued that the High Court’s judicial review of the Regulations (News, 30 April 2004) had established that the religious exemption must be interpreted extremely narrowly to ensure that it remained compatible with European law; the tribunal was bound by that decision.
The scope of the exemption could not be extended to a lay employee merely by the Bishop’s choosing to describe him as a “minister of the gospel”. She argued that, in law, Mr Reaney would not be employed for the “purposes of an organised religion”.
Afterwards, Alison Downie, John Reaney’s solicitor, said: “My client has received many messages of support from outside and within the Churches — for which he is very grateful. All my client seeks is fair treatment in accordance with the law.”
A spokeswoman for the diocese of Hereford said: “We will comment further when judgment is received.”
Today, Thursday, John Reaney gave evidence to the tribunal, see this report from the Press Association Bishop ‘embarrassed’ gay job applicant:
…At the meeting on July 19, Bishop Priddis wanted to ask Mr Reaney, who currently works for the Weston Spirit charity, the reasons why he had left his youth worker post in the Diocese of Chester in 2002 after 16 months.
Mr Reaney told the tribunal today he resigned after being asked to choose between his partner and his job.
Around four months prior to the meeting with Bishop Priddis, Mr Reaney said this five-year relationship had come to an end.
During a two-hour meeting at The Palace in Hereford, which was also attended by John Chapman, the chairman of the Hereford Diocesan Board of Education, Mr Reaney claims the Bishop first asked him about his relationship history.
“I said I was not in a sexual relationship and was not looking for one and that I was able to exercise self control,” said Mr Reaney.
“The Bishop put it to me that this situation could change. I made it very clear to the Bishop that I was not seeking a relationship and would adhere to his wishes if I were under his authority.
“I would communicate with him if I was struggling. He asked me ’what would you do if you met someone?’
“I told that if I felt a relationship might develop in the future, I would discuss it with him.
“However, I reiterated to him that I was not in a sexual relationship and I did intend to remain that way and I explicitly told him that I was certainly happy to remain celibate for the duration of the post.”
He added: “When the Bishop asked me if I thought it was appropriate for a Youth Officer to have such a homosexual relationship, I turned to the Bishop and said ’before we go any further what is your stance?’
“His words to me were ’whilst many of our colleagues are becoming more liberal on the issue, I find myself becoming more conservative.’
“At this point my heart sank. That was the turning point in the conversation for me.”
Mr Reaney said he was left “very embarrassed and extremely upset” following the meeting…
BBC Bishop ‘upset’ gay lay applicant
Updated Thursday morning
Statement from the Diocese of Hereford April 03rd 2007
“The Bishop of Hereford denies any unlawful discrimination and has acted in accordance with Church teaching in applying a standard of sexual practice that applied equally to heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and transsexual people and not on the orientation of any particular group. We expect the same sexual standards of behaviour from support ministers, or lay ministers, as we do of clergy. We will not comment further whilst the Employment Tribunal proceedings are continuing.”
Anni Holden, Director of Communications
The Diocesan Office, The Palace, Hereford HR4 9BL
Tel: 01432 373342 mobile 07889 186316
a.holden@hereford.anglican.org
www.hereford.anglican.org
Updates
Wednesday morning press reports:
Press Association Bishop accused of discrimination
Wednesday afternoon press reports:
Press Association Bishop denies discrimination
Hereford Times