Clearing the Ground a review – part 2: The Equality and Human Rights Commission is not fit for purpose

Section 2. Have recent changes to the law affected Christian freedoms?

This is part two of the review of the Clearing the Ground report published by Christians in Parliament on the 27th February 2012.  You can read part one of the report HERE.

Section 1 of Clearing the Ground discussed the question of whether Christians are being marginalised in society in the UK.  Following on from this Section 2 turns its attention as to whether recent legislation in Parliament is adding to the marginalisation of Christian belief.  Two pieces of legislation in particular are brought into focus; the Equality Act of 2010 and the Public Order Act.

The Equalities Act is less than two years old, but in that time its impact on Christian organisations and individuals has been considerable.  The act represents the most significant piece of legislation relating to the role of religion for many years and it consolidates numerous pieces of law that have dealt with different aspects of equality and anti-discrimination as well as introducing new responsibilities and protections.  Some characteristics of the Act such as disability, race and gender were covered by previous laws.  In addition to these, new ones were added including religion and belief and sexual orientation.

‘Prior to the introduction of the Equality Act 2010 there was no general positive protection for religious believers within the legal system. Various historic elements of the UK’s unwritten constitution place the Anglican Church in a distinctive and sometimes privileged position, but the general protection of religious belief that the Act and its immediate predecessors introduced is new.’

Paradoxically, now that religion and belief are included in equalities legislation, religious freedom is being put under pressure as tensions arise between different equalities strands.  These tensions have been most apparent between the religion and belief strand and the sexual orientation strand.  In recent court judgments sexual orientation has taken precedence and religious belief has been expected to adapt in the light of this.  The Clearing the Ground report sees this as an unacceptable and unsustainable situation.

‘The assumption behind the law that different treatment in respect of protected characteristics requires special justification is having the effect of suppressing differences of religious and ethical viewpoint.’

“Christians cannot hang up their faith as they enter the workplace. Thus a culture war has arisen out of primary legislation, which has been left to the courts to settle. And indeed the courts have gone about their business on an unfortunate trajectory that appears on the face of it to have left religious believers at the bottom of the heap.” (Lord Carey)

The report also noted that equalities legislation is having an impact on some Christian providers of goods and services.  The Sexual Orientation Regulations that followed the 2003 Equality Act prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation.  The implementation of these regulations has led to the closure of the Catholic adoption agencies because of their unwillingness to place children with same-sex couples despite the offer to refer such cases to other agencies.

It has been pointed out that while no provision is made in the Act for conscientious objection, this concept does exist in law in the case of abortion where doctors can refuse to perform abortions.  Because of this inflexibility in the Equality Act to allow for diversity of belief between different equalities strands, a hierarchy of rights is emerging in the UK, where the good of the individual is trumping the good of all.  This results in some groups becoming politically and legally privileged at the expense of others. The report identifies this as particularly prevalent in relation to sexuality.

‘As contemporary ideas have adapted to express other sexual ethics, the consistency of the Christian view has presented a problem for legislators. Although sexuality is widely acknowledged in society to be intrinsic to identity, religion is not, and our legal categories have come to reflect this contradiction.  The reality is that sexuality is more fluid and religious commitment less fluid than the law assumes.’

The report moves on to talk about cases where Christians have been arrested under the Public Order Act.  Street preachers and a cafe owner who displayed Bible verses on a screen have had charges pressed against them because others have felt insulted by their actions.

‘While acknowledging the need to prosecute those who would propose violence, we do not accept that the causing of offence should constitute justification for restricting someone’s freedom of speech. We are deeply concerned that the law is currently being applied in a way that allows the causing of offence to prompt an arrest.’

Professional bodies’ inconsistent guidance on how religious beliefs should be accommodated was also highlighted as a cause for concern.  Whilst teachers have a good deal of freedom in expressing their beliefs in the school environment, the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) drew criticism for its inflexibility towards differing viewpoints relating to sexuality.

The final part of this section of the report is given over to the work of The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).  The EHRC is the statutory body that was designed and created to regulate equality in the UK.  During the Clearing the Ground inquiry evidence presented was overwhelmingly negative about the EHRC.  Many saw it as embodying a secular humanist philosophy of equality and to be ideologically biased against religion and authentic diversity.  Many submissions suggested that the EHRC was not fit for purpose. Despite being asked to contribute to the inquiry, the EHRC chose not to.

‘It is our view that the commission has failed to sufficiently represent and advocate for the role of religion in public life and sufficiently balance the outworking of religious belief when there is a tension between it and the other equality strands.’

The section concludes with this summary:

‘Following on from the findings of Chapter 1 this chapter has considered the structural issues that might contribute to the increased prevalence of cases and situations where Christians are finding themselves marginalised. We have concluded that there are some significant problems with the law as it currently stands and in the way that it is interpreted by the courts and applied by local authorities, public bodies and the police.

 We consider that the Equality Act 2010 fails to deal with the tensions between different strands of equality policy and subsequent court judgments have relegated religious belief below other strands. Further problems are evident with Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, and the way that it is applied by the police. Different professional bodies and government departments handle religion and belief in different ways, showing a clear lack of coordination and understanding of the role of religion in public life. All of these problems demonstrate the prevalence of religious illiteracy in Britain today.’

As more equalities cases involving Christians come to court, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that the Equality Act is flawed.  The adaptation of the quote from George Orwell’s Animal farm that, “All men are equal, but some are more equal than others.” holds true in this situation.  It is impossible for two diametrically opposing views from two strands of the Equality Act to coexist as it stands.  One will always have priority over the other.  Given the recent views of Trevor Phillips, the Chair of the EHRC that religious groups should be free to follow their own rules within their own settings but not outside, the future is not looking promising for religious views that are not considered ‘culturally acceptable’.  The problem lies in the fact that someone has to make a decision in these equalities cases about whose view is more important and through its actions the EHRC has laid claim to the moral high ground.  By attempting to increase tolerance the Equalities Act is in fact doing the opposite and breeding intolerance as no one is able to question the authority of the EHRC.

Until the Equalities Act is revisited so that differing beliefs can be accommodated, then Christians are in for a rough ride.  If we want true equality in our society, then we need to stop talking about tolerance of others and start talking about respect.

You can read the full Clearing the Ground report, executive summary and contributions HERE.



Categories: Faith in society, Human rights, Parliament

Tags: , , , , , ,

8 replies

  1. The report shows the need for some readjustment within the EHRC. Possibly Trevor Philips days are now numbered. Equality Act should do what it says on the tin, now we have evidence to support the notion that is failing. Hopefully the Clearing Ground Report will persuade David Cameron and the coalition that change is needed if the act is to remain credible.

  2. “It is impossible for two diametrically opposing views from two strands of the Equality Act to coexist as it stands. One will always have priority over the other.”

    But before the Act Christians were able to discriminate against people and they did. Now they are simply being told that in the public sphere civil rights come before discriminatory religious or personal ideology practices in areas of public access and provisions.

    In an ideal world we should come to some arbitrary accommodation such as being allowed to discriminate as to who enters our home if it is a business. Work practices have to be confined within the law as there would be a free for all and everyone wanting to be accommodated – it is not always possible to accommodate every persons preferred way of living and relating to life.

    Personally I would allow Christians and other faiths to be able not to be implicit in the behaviour of those they disagree with – for that is what some Christians are saying – such as same-sex couple, and therefore non-married couples, as sex outside marriage also should be discriminated against, as some Christians see it as wrong. Also such Christians should not associate with these wrong doers unless they too are corrupted. So such Christians will have to be explicit in who they associate with at work and in the public sphere.

    Thus, in order for such Christians to be accommodated Equality Act should be ammended to allow for a leeway of accommodation, but the onus, surely, must be on the organisation concerned and not an enforceable legal action, otherwise the priority is once again given to, this time in reality, a select minority.

    It might also be worth noting that the number of court cases and instances relating to accomodating such Christian nuances are in truth so small and in many a case really should and could have been avoided if common sense and decency had prevailed on both sides. As Saint Paul states, Christians are taking people to court to be judged by secular judges instead of trying to find a way of reconciliation, which will entail sacrifices, which, to be a real Christian, as such Christians no doubt are, should be the first to do.

    This is not sitting idly by and letting people ram rod their lifestyles against you and insist you treat them as equal human beings. It is a way of trying to accommodate through law something that few people really bother or care about. If public service provision is to be restricted at whim, then that is what we had before the Act. Two wrongs of course do not make a right, but careful thinking has to be done and truth of the issues have to be known in order for fairness to come about.

    • This is an excellent analysis of the situation. There are so few cases of Christians going to court that it suggests that generally the equlities framework is not causing issues for the majority of people. The problem seems to come when one or both parties in a dispute are entrenched in their views or one deliberately forces their point of view against another without any accomodation of any other position.

      There was a case not long ago of a Christian couple who ran a B&B ending up in court because they only let married couples share a room. When they refused to let a gay couple share a room they were prosecuted for breaching the gay couple’s rights and lost the case. The couple argued that they were not discriminating against gay couples as they also refused shared rooms to unmarried heterosexual couples. They had been able to maintain this policy until it became a ‘gay’ issue. However I do believe they were asking for trouble eventually. Was this the best way to express their Christian beliefs by excluding others?

      Unfortunately the EHRC exposed its bias in this case by financially assisting the gay couple. The EHRC has repeatedly indicated that religious equality is not on a par with other equality strands and acted in ways to confirm this stance. This is reinforcing the point made in the Clearing the Ground that there is significant religious illiteracy in government causing religious groups to feel they are being discriminated against whilst also consequently empowering secularist organisations and giving them the confidence to further their agenda against religion adn in particular, Christianity.

  3. Its extraordinary that the E.H.R.C would not contribute to the enquiry and many of their public statements have been as much antagonistic as biased. Its as if article 9 does not exist. The Daily Mail had a much more broad based critique of the E.H.R.C. yesterday so they are coming under increasing criticism regarding how they spend thier money,the agenda of political correctness and the organisations / causes they support. It may be that at a time of cutbacks, economics and funding issues may play a part in how effective they can be in the future.

Trackbacks

  1. Clearing the Ground | THINKING: Middle of the road Libertarian? Maybe…
  2. Landmark Parliamentary Inquiry | Richard's Watch
  3. Clearing the Ground–brief update | Richard's Watch
%d bloggers like this: