EHRC consultation on religion and discrimination

After publishing an ambiguous press release in July that left many with the impression that it might support discrimination against LGBT people when perpetrators used their religious beliefs as a justification, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has since let it be known that it continues to not support such cases.

Instead, it has said that people like civil registrar Lillian Ladele and relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane should not be able to use their faith to justify refusing to serve LGBT people, but that there are situations where 'reasonable accommodation' should be made for employees' religious convictions, such as Nadia Eweida wanting to wear a small cross on a chain while working on an airline check-in desk.

The EHRC is now asking for people's opinions on four cases filed with the European Court of Human Rights and in which it has been given permission to intervene. The cases include the three mentioned above plus that of Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who wanted to wear a crucifix on a chain while working on a hospital geriatric ward.

You can take part in the consultation by reading the consultation document and emailing or writing to the EHRC, or you can make use of this handy form at the Gaily Mail, which makes it all easy peasy (but do still read the consultation document first so you know what you're responding to).

The details of Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin's cases (which have been filed together) can be downloaded here (Word doc), and those of Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane's (also filed together) are here (Word doc). A bit involved but interesting.

The deadline for responses is 5 September, so don't tarry...

I don't know whether this really was a backtrack on the part of the EHRC, or whether it just hadn't communicated its position clearly enough in the first place. Whichever it is, I know I found the clarification much more reassuring than the initial press release.

I emailed my response to the EHRC today:

Response to EHRC’s Legal intervention on religion or belief rights: seeking your views

1. Please let us know if you think the UK tribunals and courts applied the correct principles to the cases of Eweida or Chaplin to ensure that freedom of religion and belief was properly respected as set out in articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention? Please let us have your views on the cases and whether there are specific aspects you think are important.

Yes and no. It is reasonable for someone to be able to manifest their beliefs, though this should not interfere with their ability to do their job safely and effectively. There might also be situations where their job puts them in a position of power or authority over others and where displaying or professing personally held beliefs could be inappropriate.

In Nadia Eweida’s case, it is unfair that accommodation had been made for Sikh and Muslim employees to wear symbols of their faith but that a similar agreement had not been made with her. It is easier for employers to respond to the articulated concerns of groups of employees about acknowledged symbols than to pre-empt an individual’s desire to wear one that many others of the same religion do not view as a necessary manifestation of faith.

However, given that British Airways already recognised that its employees could display religious symbols without this affecting customer-facing roles, and given that there was no reason to believe that Eweida’s cross on a chain would provide any additional barriers to her doing her job safely and effectively, it is disappointing that approval was not given when she first objected to removing it on grounds of faith. Whether or not she should be entitled to compensation for lost earnings, she is unlikely to have been in a situation where this would be an issue if a principle of reasonable accommodation were in place and if her employer had applied it.

This presents its own questions – What might some people claim as a symbol of their beliefs? What motivations might they have for doing so, and could these be judged fairly by others? There may also be a concern that professing a belief could be used to gain privileges that non-religious people won’t be able to enjoy, but this seems disproportionate in a case of wanting to wear a cross on a chain. The principle of reasonable accommodation appears sound so long as a person’s ability to do a job, which they have chosen to take on, in a safe and effective manner is taken into account.

Shirley Chaplin’s case is rather different. Her employer seems to have applied a practical consideration in an equitable way and in line with appropriate guidance from the Department of Health[1]. Accommodation had been made with others where possible, and a possible solution was offered to her but rejected on the grounds that her crucifix would not be seen by others.

I hope that Chaplin is underestimating herself when she says that her actions may suffer if people could not see that she was a Christian and so hold her accountable to her convictions. As a registered nurse, she would be bound by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) code[2] to maintain professional standards of conduct, performance and ethics, and this should be sufficient for any NMC registrant in combination with their personal moral sense, whatever its source.

Another issue that needs to be considered is whether a professional is abusing a position of power to impose their personal beliefs upon someone who should be able to expect non-judgemental, person-centred support or care. Yet, while this would apply in professing faith in certain circumstances, making an unsolicited offer to pray or discriminating in how service users are treated, it is unlikely that wearing a crucifix would constitute an imposition for someone else (unless there was good reason to believe that vulnerable service users might feel intimidated by the imagery).

2. Please let us know if you think the UK tribunals and courts applied the justification test correctly in the cases of Ladele or McFarlane? Please let us have your views on the cases and whether there are specific aspects you think are important.

Yes, I think this was applied correctly. Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane wanted to discriminate against service users in same-sex relationships on the basis of their disapproval of them, and this would be wrong even though this disapproval is founded upon their religious convictions.

It is right that people should be protected against discrimination on the grounds of their religious or similar beliefs, but it is wrong to use these beliefs as a justification for discriminating against others. If either Ladele or McFarlane were being discriminated against on the grounds that they were Christian – even if that included their disapproval of same-sex relationships – then that would be wrong. You should not be able to legislate against people’s beliefs, even if you object to them, unless you have very good grounds for thinking that these beliefs will lead to unacceptable practices.

However, their employers took issue with their refusal to commit to not discriminating against certain clients in providing services that were part and parcel of their jobs. To filter out lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) clients so that they didn’t have to work with them would be wrong, as would exposing LGB clients who were inadvertently not filtered out to their disapproval.

A narrative has developed in discussions of these and similar cases about ‘balancing out’ different groups of people’s rights with each other[3]. This is flawed because it incorrectly presumes that equivalent rights are being compared. If an atheist lesbian registrar refused to register Christian couples of whose beliefs and lifestyles she disapproved, it would be wrong to filter out Christian clients for her (if they abused or harassed her because she was lesbian or atheist then that would be different). Similar situations could include a humanist gay B&B owner refusing to let a room to a Muslim customer, or indeed a heterosexual Jewish B&B owner refusing to accept a Christian customer (again, as opposed to if either customer behaved in a homophobic or anti-Semitic way).

Through this narrative, some suggest that religious convictions should be able to ‘trump’ other people’s rights – those they disapprove of and want to be able to discriminate against, and non-religious people who would find it hard to justify similar discrimination on non-religious grounds[4].

It is right that Ladele and McFarlane were ruled against, not because their rights as Christians are less important than those of LGB people, but because any right that someone might believe they have to discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation or religion/belief (even if based on religious or other strongly held beliefs) is outweighed by everyone’s right to not be discriminated against on grounds of either sexuality or religion/belief in the provision of goods and services.

Another narrative used by groups such as the Christian Legal Centre, which campaigns for Ladele and McFarlane’s justification of discrimination to be legal, draws a line between discriminating against LGB people and other forms such as racism[5]. It says that discriminating against LGB people because of a religious conviction that sex between two people of the same sex is sinful is different to discriminating against someone because of what they are (eg a person of a particular race).

It is extremely contentious to say that people are LGB only in as much as we have same-sex sex and relationships, as it is to say that being mixed race, Black, White or Asian in the UK in 2011 has nothing to do with time and place-specific social and cultural constructs, and only reflects predetermined and essential characteristics. It would also be possible to argue (just as contentiously) that people’s religious beliefs are not essential, but dependent on their context, experiences and choices, and this could just as easily be used to defend discriminating against someone because of their religion.

If it were acceptable to discriminate against people on the basis of convictions about their assumed sexual behaviour being wrong, would it then be reasonable for a B&B owner to refuse an interracial couple accommodation on the grounds that they disapproved of interracial sex? I suspect that this would rightly be viewed as unacceptable racism, even if the B&B owner’s disapproval was founded upon their religious beliefs.

3. Do you think some concept akin to reasonable accommodation for individuals wishing to manifest their religions or beliefs in the workplace should be incorporated into the approach to human rights in the UK?

Yes, as long as this really is reasonable accommodation – there are many situations in which accommodation would not be reasonable – and clearly about manifesting religious beliefs rather than justifying discrimination against or unreasonable behaviour towards others on the grounds of these beliefs.

Nadia Eweida’s case shows how reasonable accommodation could be used constructively to avoid unnecessary conflict and legal proceedings.

Shirley Chaplin’s case serves as one example of where lines need to be drawn to determine when accommodation would in fact not be reasonable.

Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane’s cases demonstrate situations in which accommodation should not even begin to be considered.

---

[1] Department of Health. (2009) Religion or belief: a practical guide for the NHS. London: Department of Health.

[2] Nursing and Midwifery Council. (2008) The code: Standards of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives. London: Nursing and Midwifery Council.

[3] Evangelical Alliance. (2011) Calls for changes in human rights law to protect individuals. London: Evangelical Alliance.

[4] National Secular Society. (2011) Court rules against homophobic discrimination. London: National Secular Society.

[5] Geen J. (2011) Christian campaigners claim ‘massive support’ for compromises for anti-gay workers. London: PinkNews.co.uk

Genuine oil, from real snakes

Sense About Science are collecting signatures against new UK regulations that allow homeopathic products to make medical claims without any evidence of their efficacy.

You may want to sign up if you agree with the following:

Evidence-based medicine has been a major public gain of the twentieth century

Homeopathy is not evidence-based medicine

The new regulations on homeopathic products compromise standards of evidence and clear labelling

The policy change is damaging to patients' best interests

Evidence-based medicine is essential to public health; the growth of the homeopathic industry does not contribute to public health

Rules for the regulation of medicines should not allow homeopathic products to make unsubstantiated health claims

The full statement of support for evidence-based medicine is available here (pdf).

The sky's your aubergine

Fazal Hussain's Allahu in the sky compared to Allahu in Arabic script.

The Asian News today features a Manchester man showing off a photo of the sky taken by a friend of his in Pakistan, apparently with a cloud formation bearing a faint resemblance to the Arabic Allahu, as in Allahu akbar ('God is great').

The man, Fazal Hussain, says:

Allah exists in everything including the sky and this
amazing picture is proof of that."

Proof indeed. And there I was wondering why so many people buy into homeopathy...

For similar silliness, see Miracle pictures of Islam.

What's wrong with 'atheism'?

Nothing as far as I'm concerned, so I have to admit to being slightly nonplussed by the Brights movement, which says it aims to promote a "naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements."

I agree with Pandagon that calling yourself a 'Bright' simply sounds nerdy and superior - see Pharyngula for further interesting discussion.

I have no problem calling myself 'atheist' when I want to express the fact that I do not believe in anything divine, and 'humanist' to say that I believe in making judgements about right and wrong without referring to supernatural concepts. I also call myself 'secularist' because I think the only way to avoid one belief group unfairly dominating all others is for states to not align themselves with any.

Despite the fact that I do think religious beliefs are at best silly and at worst downright dangerous, I'm suspicious of atheists clubbing together to tell other people what they should and shouldn't believe (I'm perfectly good enough at doing that on an individual basis). I'm also not convinced that the apparent growing zealotry of Richard Dawkins and others is at all constructive in dealing with the very real threats posed by anti-secular groups.

Happy St. George's day

April 23 - a day to remember the half Turkish, half Palestinian soldier of Imperial Rome who, according to early Christian legend, was tortured and beheaded for refusing to persecute fellow Christians but who was canonised by Pope Gelasius I for acts "known only to god" and later associated with dragon-slaying and princess-saving; who is now patron saint of Aragon, Canada, Cappadocia, Catalonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Palestine, Portugal, Amersfoort, Beirut, Ferrara, Genoa, Gozo, Haldern, Heide, Istanbul, Limburg, Modica, Moscow, Ptuj and Venice, as well as of butchers, soldiers, Boy Scouts, archers, armourers, cavalry and chivalry, farmers and field workers, riders and saddlers, helper of those suffering from leprosy, plague and syphilis, and revered by some Muslims as al-Khadr.

An appropriate patron saint for England if ever there was.

An Ethiopian Orthodox priest displaying an antique bible with a depiction of St. George on horseback slaying a dragon (sacredsites.com)

Information from Wikipedia, the BBC and Catholic Community Forum.

Reform at least

Yesterday, BBC News said the Dutch government has received a report from the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) contradicting the perception that Islam necessarily conflicts with human rights or 'Western values,' an idea that has gained increasing currency there since the brutal murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004.

Though an English translation of Dynamism In Islamic Activism is not yet available, an executive summary is. From that:

In the past, the EU, in its advocacy of democratization and the improvement of human rights in neighboring Muslim countries, primarily put its hopes on non-religious movements and parties, even if these groups had little political support within the local population. It becomes increasingly apparent, however, that ignoring the political and juridical agendas of religious activism offers no solution and may even be counterproductive. Not only does such a stance discourage Islamic groups with substantial followings who are prepared to pursue gradual political liberalization from within the existing system, but it also fuels the widely-held view amongst ordinary citizens in the Muslim world that secularism and (Western) democracy, by definition, serve anti-religious interests. This will only fan the demand for Islamization, either because radicals will receive more support from the population for their religious views, or because political rulers themselves will play the conservative ‘Islamization card’ in order to maintain political legitimacy."

Another recent WRR publication, produced within the framework of the same research, is also worth a read: Reformation of Islamic Thought (pdf 1.1Mb). It gives a useful historical perspective absent from many discussions of Islam, and begins:

The rise of Islamic activism since the 1970s and, more recently, Muslim terrorist attacks in the West, have pushed Islamic exclusivism and (violent) fundamentalism once again squarely into the public limelight. As a result, for many non-Muslims across the world, Islamic culture and religion are now closely associated with authoritarian rule, cruel traditions and human suffering. Sadly, these non-Muslims actually share Muslim fundamentalists’ convictions that the ‘real Islam’ is simply incompatible with modernity, democracy and respect for human rights."

I suppose that, if religionists of whatever flavour find themselves unable to get over their delusions, it would be nice if they could at least reform themselves into less anti-humanistic forms.

Four interesting blogs

Deficient Brain
Sinosplice
The Scientific Activist
God is for Suckers!

Buddhism is really very silly too

Reading the BBC's Time to end Sri Lanka time split today reminded me that, though in the West it is often portrayed as quite a sensible philosophy (sometimes even 'scientific'!), Buddhism is just as ridiculous as any other religion or set of superstitions.

The Venerable Gnanawimala says the change [of Sri Lanka's time zone in 1996] moved the country to a spiritual plane 500 miles east of where it should be.

"'After this change I feel that many troubles have been caused to Sri Lanka. Tsunamis and other natural disasters have been taking place,' he says."

This remains the case no matter how much Tenzin Gyatso smiles patronisingly at the rest of us.

Animation is sweet

Too funny! From BBC News' South Park gets revenge on Chef:

South Park has exacted revenge on its former star Isaac Hayes by turning his character Chef into a paedophile and seemingly killing him off."

Perfect.