« Rise of Religious 'Nones' Slows to Lowest Rate in Five Years | Main | Child Abuse Lawsuit Against Sovereign Grace Ministries Adds Names and Charges »
January 15, 2013
Fired British Christians Lose 3 of 4 Cases in Landmark Human Rights Ruling
(UPDATED) Christians who lost their high-profile cases say they plan to appeal the ECHR rulings.
Update (April 22): The Telegraph reports that the three Christians who lost their high-profile cases before the European Court of Human Rights are appealing the rulings before the court’s Grand Chamber, opening “the way for a final ruling on what limits can be put on such displays, including wearing a cross and talking about belief in the workplace.”
They plan to file papers this week claiming that “British courts are applying double standards towards Christians for ‘political’ reasons.”
-----
Update (Feb. 19): Britain's equality commission has published new guidelines on how British employers should accommodate religious beliefs in the workplace in light of the ECHR's landmark ruling.
-----
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled today that the United Kingdom did not unjustly discriminate against three of four Christians who were dismissed from their jobs on the basis of their religious conscience.
The ruling will likely define the limits of religious freedom when juxtaposed against equality and safety laws.
Nadia Eweida, Shirley Chaplin, Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane each filed separate lawsuits against the United Kingdom after they faced penalties and even were fired from their jobs as a direct result of their religious commitments. The four high-profile cases all concerned the British employees' right not to face religious discrimination at work, and all four appealed their cases as one before the ECHR in September, arguing that the government failed to "provide relief" and uphold their religious freedom.
But today the ECHR ruled only in favor of Eweida, a Coptic Christian who was dismissed from her job as a British Airways employee when she attempted to wear a cross at work.
"In Eweida's case, the Strasbourg court did not criticize U.K. law but said British courts had failed to balance competing interests in the case adequately," the Guardian reported.
According to Gregor Puppinck, director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), "The Section only found a violation in the case of Eweida because other employees of other religions were allowed to wear religious items. In the cases of Chaplin, Ladele, and McFarlane, the Section ruled that there were no violation of their right to freedom of conscience and religion."
Chaplin had argued that she was unfairly dismissed from her job at a hospital after she refused to remove a cross necklace from under her uniform. Although the case was similar to Eweida's, the ECHR "rejected Chaplin's case on the grounds that the removal of her necklace was deemed necessary to protect the health and safety of nurses and patients."
The cases of both Ladele and Landrum concerned the legal balance between religious conscience and equality rights. Ladele, a registrar, had requested not to officiate same-sex civil unions, and Landrum objected to providing counseling to same-sex patients.
But in both of these cases, the ECHR "found that Islington Council and the U.K. courts acted within an allowed margin of appreciation when handling different convention rights, in this case the competing rights of sexual orientation and religious belief," according to a press release from the Evangelical Association of the United Kingdom (EAUK).
While Dave Landrum, director of advocacy for the EAUK, praised the court's ruling in favor of Eweida, he acknowledged that "a hierarchy of rights now exists in U.K. law."
"The failure of the court to protect the religious freedom of Lillian Ladele in living out her faith in a way consistent with historic Christian belief shows the limitations of this judgement," he said. "We need solutions that will allow for the reasonable accommodation of the expressions of religious belief in all its diverse forms."
The cases now may be appealed to the ECHR's grand chamber.
CT previously noted the four cases and reported on previous religion-related rulings from the ECHR, including the Italian government's use of crucifixes in public schools and Ireland's ban on abortions.
Comments
Religious freedoms granted by governments can just as easily be taken away by governments. I don't unbelievers admire or respect our tooth and nail fight to hang on to man granted freedoms. I think we look small and petty in their eyes. But if they should see us rights that might be ours, if they see a difference in us that doesn't come from outward symbols, then maybe they'll ask why. Then we have a chance to tell about the freedom that comes in and through Christ Jesus and how no government or man can take that away.
Posted By: Charles Stearns | January 15, 2013 1:37 PM
Yes, Charles, of course religious freedoms granted by governments can be taken away. But that is no reason to accept without protest the loss of faith freedom. For one thing, the loss of such freedom often means the loss of freedom to witness. For another, the loss means parents cannot adequately stand up against the indoctrination of children in government school systems. And, thirdly, not speaking out means not defending fellow-believers.
The apostle Paul appealed to Caesar. True, Caesar executed him, but that does not mean he should not have appealed.
Refusal to speak out against oppression means refusal to speak out against injustice. It is hard to see how that can be argued for from a Christian point of view.
Posted By: Ted Hewlett | January 15, 2013 2:03 PM
I expected that the real fight would be over freedom of conscience and not freedom to wear religious symbols.
Other religions are allowed to wear symbols far more conspicuous than a small cross on a chain, e.g turbans, head-scarfs etc. I believe that Christian freedom in these areas will continue to hinge on what happens in these other religions which presently seem to be more favoured.
The other rulings are much more sinister. If as a Christian one cannot opt out of marrying, or counseling, two homosexuals, then it means than one is effectively barred from being a registrar or a counselor in any public, government run or sponsored agency. This will place one at a distinct disadvantage in respect to job options.
Based on this ruling Christians will not be allowed to serve in any area where having to deal conscientiously with issues relative to homosexuals, such as same-sex "marriage", adoptions of children etc. Some Catholic adoption agencies, for example, have already had to close for the same reason.
Christians,however, should not lose hope for two reasons. The first is because of that tolerated religious group in European society which always seem to get what it wants. Should this group begin to deal with these cultural issues you will see a marked difference in how the same issues will be handled.
The second reason is that these ruling should serve as a wake up call to individual Christians and Christian families that European society no longer has any fond feelings, or even memories, of the Christian faith. If this finally sinks in and is acted upon Christianity in Europe may be the better for it.
It is as sad as it is true, but all indicators now point to the fact that Christianity is fast becoming a second class religion in Europe. European academics, politicians and elites are now enamored of a new faith friends, ones they speak glowingly about in spite of every evidence that should advise caution.
European societies may one day come to regret exchanging 'wells of living water' for foreign 'broken cisterns' that hold no water at all.
Posted By: Steve Skeete | January 15, 2013 3:00 PM
Charles - I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. I see religious rights as a natural good, something that is good for everyone and that we should try to maintain: kind of like health or prosperity. I agree that God may have very good reasons for wanting Christians to lose those rights - persecution has often strengthened the Church - so I agree with you that when it is inevitable, we should accept the loss of those rights with reasonable grace. God is in charge, not the HHS. But at the same time, I don't want those rights to be lost any more than I want our nation's prosperity or my personal health to be lost. They are all three good things, and all worth fighting for.
Posted By: Ken Smith | January 15, 2013 4:33 PM
Yes, there are instances in history when persecution has strengthened the Church, but there are also many other instances in history when persecution has led to the elimination of Christianity from entire regions--look at North Africa and the Middle East as examples. While I do agree that our ultimate allegiance is to Jesus Christ, and our ultimate, eternal citizenship is in heaven, for the sake of maintaining our Gospel witness in the present and future generations, I believe we should fight for our religious liberties whenever they are threatened.
Posted By: Derek Atkins | January 15, 2013 11:56 PM
I recommend you listen to Os Guiness' message "A Free People's Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American Future."
http://vimeo.com/49954525
We on a dangerous course philosophically where we are fighting for "personal rights" for our freedom. However, real freedom requires virtue, and virtue requires true freedom. For if we are not good godly people, then we can not appreciate freedom within moral constraints. Instead, it will be subject to our passions and desires and not what is best for society, and even less, what will honor God.
Posted By: Randy Strode | January 16, 2013 12:13 AM
It's very simple: the job of a registrar is to issue marriage licenses. Anyone who can't issue marriage license to all qualified parties is simply unfit to be a registrar. And, no, 'my Bible made me do it' is not a legitimate excuse for discriminating against other citizens or failing to follow the law.
Posted By: Beatrice | January 16, 2013 12:19 AM
If you are going to comment on issues of such importance in a factual and accurate manner in order to promote honest and civil debate, you need to get your facts straight. Please note that Nadia Eweida was never fired from her job and has been continuously employed by British Airways for 13 years. It also changed its policy regarding the wearing of jewellery in 2007 as a result of this case. She however decided to pursue this case even though she has had the "right" to wear her cross since 2007.
Posted By: Prana | January 16, 2013 2:55 AM
Post a comment: