Thinking Anglicans

Comments on the European court decisions

This morning there are many more articles commenting on the decisions announced yesterday in Strasbourg.

Editorial Religious freedom: Strasbourg’s balancing act
Cif belief Andrew Brown The BA Christian case was judged rightly, and a true test of tolerance

Editorial: Strasbourg performs a double service for us
Jerome Taylor A loss for the Christian lobby: the ECHR ruling reinforces the crucial point that religious rights don’t automatically trump the rights of others

Editorial: A new intolerance is nudging faith aside
Graeme Archer Is the ECHR the enemy of Christians? Or their friend?

Liberty Court of Human Rights delivers common-sense judgment on religious freedom and equal treatment

Theos European Court judgements send wrong message about religious freedom, says Theos

Evangelical Alliance Religious beliefs need common sense protection – response to European Court judgement

Religion Law Blog has Eweida and Others – First Views

Head of Legal has Strasbourg judgment: Eweida and others v UK

The Telegraph has Eric Pickles: Christian cases ‘should not go to Strasbourg’

More links available via Ekklesia at Commentary on the Strasbourg judgement: Eweida & Others v. the UK

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martin Reynolds
Martin Reynolds
11 years ago

Just a few things on Andrew Brown’s thoughtful piece. Information suggests that the majority of local authorities followed Islington’s example of making all registrars, civil partnership registrars. Islington did try to accommodate Ms Ladele and although the court here says she was dismissed a previous judgement says she resigned. In the circumstances one might expect quite a group of disenchanted registrars to come to light, it is significant there is not. Where are they all hiding? In fact what is striking is just how few cases of any sort there have been and how longstanding these grievances have endured. Not… Read more »

Craig Nelson
Craig Nelson
11 years ago

The dissenting opinions in the Ladele case are rather alarming in some respects. Not that there shouldn’t be a dissent – the anomaly of being or not being a Registrar for CPs always opened up the possibility of a different judgment; but the characterisation of the authority by the judges is quite simply alarming in a number of respects. I think the judges here roam far too wide and overstep the role of the Strasbourg court as a court of review that respects national decision making. Yes it’s a minority and there’s a further step of appeal but nevertheless it’s… Read more »

11 years ago

Did anyone see that the Vatican has voiced an opinion on the judgments?

Does anyone think anyone cares anymore what the Vatican thinks about anything?

Martin Reynolds
Martin Reynolds
11 years ago

Significant that we have both Craig Nelson and badman on an earlier thread stating that these judgements have, in important ways, overstepped the mark in what the Strasbourg court should be doing.

Andrew Brown
11 years ago

Martin, I think the strong case against Ladele is that she was happy to marry divorced people — which is a large part of what a registry office exists to do — while maintaining that she was driven by biblical standards of faithful marriage between one man and one woman for life. I had forgotten or overlooked that when I wrote (I remembered it while chatting to the leader writer later) because I wanted to drive the line about tolerating mistaken opinions. Which I still think is extremely important, though how much toleration and when are clearly matters on which… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x