Profiling the four Christian freedom of religion cases at the European Court of Human Rights next week

This is big.

Four Christians who have all lost cases relating to freedom of religion in the UK courts will be going to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) next Tuesday (4th September) seeking to have their judgements overturned.  It’s taken over four years to get to this point and the rulings could have a major impact on religious freedoms in the UK depending on the outcome.  This hearing is set to become an unprecedented event in the historical relationship between religious freedom and the legal system.

So who are these four people and why have their cases ended up at the EHCR?  Well probably the best place to find the answers is in the ECHR’s very own press release on the cases:

The applicants, Nadia Eweida, Shirley Chaplin, Lilian Ladele and Gary McFarlane, are British nationals who were born respectively in 1951, 1955, 1960 and 1961. They live in Twickenham, Exeter, London and Bristol, respectively.

All four applicants are practising Christians who complain that UK law did not sufficiently protect their rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination at work.  Ms Eweida, a British Airways employee, and Ms Chaplin, a geriatrics nurse, complain that their employers placed restrictions on their visibly wearing Christian crosses around their necks while at work. Ms Ladele, a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and Mr McFarlane, a Relate counsellor, complain about their dismissal for refusing to carry out certain of their duties which they considered would condone homosexuality.

Chaplin and Eweida

Both applicants believe that the visible wearing of a cross is an important part of the manifestation of their faith.

From 1999 Ms Eweida worked part-time as a member of check-in staff for British Airways and was required to wear a uniform. British Airways’ uniform code required women to wear a high necked shirt and a cravat, with no visible jewellery. Any item which a staff member had to wear for religious reasons was to be covered by the uniform or, if this was not possible, approval had to be sought from local management.  Until May 2006, Ms Eweida wore a small silver cross on a chain around her neck concealed under her uniform. As a sign of her commitment to her faith, she then decided to wear the cross openly. In September 2006, she was sent home without pay until she decided to comply with the uniform code. In October 2006 she was offered administrative work without the obligation to wear a uniform or have contact with customers, which she refused. She finally returned to work in February 2007 when the company’s policy was changed to permit the display of religious and charity symbols, with the cross and the star of David being given immediate authorisation.

Ms Chaplin worked as a qualified nurse employed by the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust from April 1989 to July 2010. At the time of the events in question she worked on a geriatrics ward. The hospital had a uniform policy stating that any jewellery worn had to be discreet and banning necklaces in order to reduce risk of injury when handling patients. In June 2007, when new uniforms with V-necks were introduced in the hospital, Ms Chaplin’s manager asked her to remove the crucifix on the chain around her neck. Ms Chaplin sought approval to continue wearing her crucifix which was refused on the ground that it could cause injury if a patient pulled on it. In November 2009 she was moved to a non-nursing temporary position which ceased to exist in July 2010.

Both applicants lodged claims with the Employment Tribunal complaining in particular of discrimination on religious grounds. The Tribunal rejected Ms Eweida’s claim, finding that the visible wearing of a cross was not a requirement of the Christian faith but the applicant’s personal choice and that she had failed to establish that British Airways’ uniform policy had put Christians in general at a disadvantage. Her appeal to the Court of Appeal was also subsequently rejected and the Supreme Court refused her leave to appeal in May 2010. Ms Chaplin’s claim was also rejected in May 2010, the Tribunal holding that the hospital’s position had been based on health and safety rather than religious grounds and that there was no evidence that anyone other than the applicant had been put at particular disadvantage. Given the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ms Eweida’s case, Ms Chaplin was advised that an appeal on points of law had no prospect of success.

Ladele and McFarlane

Both Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane are Christians, who believe that homosexual relationships are contrary to God’s law and that it is incompatible with their beliefs to do anything to condone homosexuality.

Ms Ladele was employed as a Registrar by the London Borough of Islington from 1992 to 2009. When the Civil Partnership Act came into force in the United Kingdom in December 2005, she was informed by her employer that she would henceforth be required to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies between homosexual couples. When Ms Ladele refused to sign an amended contract, disciplinary proceedings were brought against her in May 2007 which concluded that, if she failed to include civil partnership ceremonies as part of her duties, she would be in breach of Islington Council’s equality and diversity policy and her contract could be terminated.

Mr McFarlane worked for Relate as a Counsellor from May 2003 to March 2008. In 2007 he started a post graduate diploma in psycho sexual therapy which deals in particular with sexual dysfunction and aims to improve a couple’s sexual activity by improving the relationship overall. By the end of 2007 Mr McFarlane’s superiors as well as other therapists had expressed concern that there was conflict between his religious beliefs and his work with same-sex couples. In January 2008 a disciplinary investigation was opened. In March 2008 Mr McFarlane was dismissed summarily for gross misconduct on the ground that he had stated that he would comply with Relate’s Equal Opportunities Policies and provide counselling to same-sex couples without any intention of doing so. A subsequent appeal was rejected.

Both applicants brought proceedings before the Employment Tribunal on grounds of religious discrimination; Mr McFarlane also claimed that he had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed. Both claims were rejected on appeal on the basis that their employers were not only entitled to require them to carry out their duties but also to refuse to accommodate views which contradicted their fundamental declared principles – and, all the more so, where these principles were required by law, notably under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. Ultimately, in March 2010 Ms Ladele was refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and, in April 2010, Mr McFarlane was refused permission to appeal again to the Employment Appeal Tribunal as there was no realistic prospect of it succeeding, given that Mr McFarlane’s case could not sensibly be distinguished from Ms Ladele’s.

Relying in particular on Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), all four applicants complain that domestic law failed to adequately protect their right to manifest their religion.

Joshua Rozenberg who describes himself as “Britain’s best-known commentator on the law” and was the BBC’s legal correspondent has written an article for the Law Society Gazette addressing the four cases and comes out strongly in support of Lillian Ladele, whose case he focuses on.  To their credit the National Secular Society with permission have published it on their website.  If you want to get a flavour of what is to come at the ECHR in the weeks ahead, I recommend you take a look at Rozeberg’s piece.

Categories: Faith in society, Justice, The law & legal issues

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

5 replies

  1. The wearing of the cross as a right is interesting as some Christians feel no need to wear one, that it is not a requirement of faith, i even heard one describe it as a graven image. I myself do not wear one and many feel that we should show our faith through practical grace rather than our jewellery. The biggest benefit to wearing the cross is that it often leads to a discussion about Jesus. If we are serious about freedom of religion and its expression we should allow the wearing of a cross for those who wish it. After all we seem to bend over backwards to allow those of other faiths to show visible signs. When i worked as a nurse in some units we were not allowed to wear jewellery and had to wear clip on ties for health and safety reasons so some sensible exemptions or disclaimers may need to apply. Secularists may argue ”whats so special about a religious symbol” Why cant we wear badges at work for the things we believe in. One police authority required that officers wore a badge to show support for the Gay community. For one officer in Norfolk this was not the type of P.C he signed up for and he objected. Others might claim a right to wear political symbols or even their favourite football team or rock band. In public service these symbols are generally not allowed so as not to prejudice their work with the public, sadly the Christian cross is increasingly seen in that prejudicial way. If the expression of our faith is not impinging on the rights of others it should be allowed. In the case of Mc Farlane i don’t think he ever refused to do what was required within his job but rather showed concerns about it. The disciplinary process seems to have been activated very quickly in his case which seems extreme at a time when social attitudes are changing and people are expected to take on these new attitudes on demand where previously they were not considered normative. This was clearly illustrated In the case of the marriage registrar, the nature of her Job had changed whilst she was in post and colleagues had been covering same sex civil ceremonies for her meaning that all same sex couples had received the service to which they were entitled. When we stand for a biblical principle in this way there will always be conflict with the prevailing liberal culture particularly with regard to sexual ethics. As i have said many times before a legal framework of reasonable accommodation is the only answer to ensure that conscience is respected and all people receive equal rights to services and cut down on expensive and time consuming court cases. In a secular culture whilst we cannot demand exemptions as of right we should be able to act on conscience without being sanctioned in the workplace. These should be confined to the issues around hatches matches and dispatches because they are profound to life.

    • I agree with you Graham. These four cases are all different and pose different problems and issues. I think people forget this at times with these cases as they have been somewhat lumped together in terms of timings.

      For me the most frustrating cases are Gary McFarlane’s and Lilian Ladele’s they were doing their jobs without any problems but then the law was changed and the goalposts were too. Despite them not doing anything wrong they lost their jobs when they could have carried on with their objections without it causing any problems.

      Whatever happens I’ll be watching the developments and outcomes closely. We need to pray that justice will be done and the right decisions made.


  1. Four stand up for Christian freedom in Britain | Richard's Watch
  2. Prayer Alert: landmark cases in European Court | Richard's Watch
  3. Don’t argue | MrTheKidd
%d bloggers like this: