Newsline 24 April 2015

The Christian “fired for praying at work” – here’s the other side of the story

Opinion | Thu, 23rd Apr 2015

The British media unquestioningly promulgates the false narrative of Christians being discriminated against in the workplace. Terry Sanderson looks at the latest case involving a Christian disciplined for subjecting a subordinate to unwanted and intrusive proselytising.

The Christian Legal Centre's latest claim that one of its clients had suffered religious discrimination at work has been rejected by an employment tribunal in East London.

The case involved Victoria Wasteney, an occupational therapist working for the East London NHS Trust. Ms Wasteney is a member of the Christian Revival Church London – a "happy-clappy" Pentecostal outfit. She describes herself as a "born-again Christian".

When the case was being heard, the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail published reports based almost entirely on what they had been told by Andrea Minichielo Williams of the Christian Legal Centre. It gave the impression that Ms Wasteney was another in a long line of Christians who were being oppressed and discriminated against at work.

The NSS said at the time that there was probably more to this story than was being revealed by the Christian Legal Centre and, indeed, there is.

Much more.

We have obtained a copy of the tribunal judgment and it tells the whole story of Ms Wasteney's determined evangelism in the psychiatric hospital where she worked.

She started work in the hospital in 2007. In 2011 she approached her line manager, Mr Wilson and asked whether "the Trust could provide a Christian Worship Service at the John Howard Centre." She suggested that this could be provided by her church – The Christian Revival Church.

After consulting the chaplain, Mr Wilson agreed to the idea for a probationary period, only on the understanding that the services would be "ecumenical" in nature, so it would have broad appeal and that all Christians who wanted to could attend.

Within weeks of the church arriving in the hospital complaints began to arrive on Mr Wilson's desk about the nature of the services it was conducting. The Matron said that staff who were escorting patients to the services were being pressurised to participate in the worship and give their personal details.

This is how the tribunal judgment then describes what happened:

A further issue was raised with Mr Wilson by Dr Philip Baker', a Consultant Psychiatrist, on 1 February 2012. Dr Baker said that the Claimant's [Ms Wasteney] interaction with a service user for whom she had no direct clinical responsibility but who had attended the CRC services with her was troubling nurses on the ward. We shall refer to this patient as "RH". Dr Baker asked to speak to Mr Wilson about his concerns. Dr Baker expressed the view to Mr Wilson that there was a potential conflict of interest between the Claimant's professional status and her personal religious convictions. As we understand it the Claimant had been acting as an escort for RH when she attended the CRC services notwithstanding that the Claimant had no direct involvement in RH's care.

Mr Wilson met the Claimant for a routine supervision meeting on 7 February 2012.

He covered a number of topics in this meeting but one of them was the concerns raised by other members of staff noted above. His notes of this point in the supervision record reads as follows:

"Phil Baker met with John re Victoria's input into RH's CR church attendance (ensuring nursing escort is available, previously assisting with escorting. Receiving RH at church). The MDT and nursing team expressed concern that Victoria is involved with this aspect of RH's care as she is not a member of RH's care team and is an active member of the CR Church. There is not an MDT issue re RH being able to attend the CR Church services but Victoria cannot be considered to be a neutral party in this and her ongoing involvement therefore represents a conflict of interest between her professional status and her personal religious convictions. I'm of the view that it does represent a potential conflict of interest and that in the event that a complaint was subsequently made, Victoria would be vulnerable to the allegation that she has a personal, vested interest in RH's attendance at CRC. It was therefore agreed that Victoria would separate herself from any further involvement in the arrangements or escorting of RH to CR Church services. Victoria noted that she was able to maintain professional boundaries in this matter but acknowledged the potential and perceived conflict of interest involved her continuing to be involved with RH. She therefore agreed to withdraw from this with immediate effect."

On the following day the Claimant emailed Mr Wilson questioning the concerns raised so, she said, she could understand them. Mr Wilson replied as follows:

"You should refrain from direct clinical input with an individual service user where the input involves attendance at, or involvement with CRC, on the grounds that you are an active member of that church

You would not be considered neutral specifically in relation patient attendance, at or involvement with CRC. This does not apply to spiritual care provision more generally although the spiritual care leads for the Trust would be that main authority in relation to this.

No-one in the MDT has described your relationship with RH as inappropriate, simply that there is a conflict of interest between your professional status and your active membership of CRC. You would be deemed to have a vested interest in RH's attendance,"

It is clear from this exchange that Mr Wilson was telling the Claimant not to involve herself in the clinical care of the service user RH who was also a member of her church because of the potential for the Claimant's motives to be misconstrued. In practical terms this meant that the Claimant was to desist from acting as escort for RH at the CRC services.

On 7 March 2012 Mr Wilson received a further email from Dr Baker informing him that the Claimant had been on the ward the previous Sunday enquiring about escorting arrangements for RH. Dr Baker also expressed a concern related by one of the Occupational Therapy Trainees that the "external facilitator" at the Discover Life Group (a CRC member) had set service users the "homework" of trying to encourage other people to join the group "to find the love of God". The trainee was concerned about the impact of this on the Trust's service users who are potentially vulnerable. Dr Baker also forwarded a further email he had received from Ms MacGillivray dated 2 March 2012 recounting an instance when an escort said that he or she had felt uncomfortable at a CRC led service.

On 15 March 2012 Mr Wilson received further complaints from two senior Occupational Therapists, Jemma Payne and Karen Hogan, that they felt that service users were being pressurised to dance, sing and clap at Discover Life Group Services, that they were being encouraged to donate to the CRC rather than to charity, that negative views had been expressed about other religions and that the services involved the laying on of hands and speaking in tongues. The two therapists also referred to the "homework" allegation and said that escorts were under pressure to participate in the service and were routinely asked to attend other CRC services in the community.

Mr Wilson spoke to Mr Copsey to get feedback on the Discover Life Group. Mr Copsey said that John Sahatundo, a Minister with the DSRCC, had been attending the services on behalf of the Department and had raised concerns that the CRC was promoting a particular strand of Christian worship and teaching.

Mr Wilson's evidence to us was that against this background he decided to suspend the Discover Life Group pilot. He announced this decision to the CRC in an email dated 19 March 2012 page 200). He also met with the Claimant that day to discuss the concerns that had been raised. He summarised the meeting in a letter to the Claimant dated 22 March 2012. He said in particular as follows:

"At our meeting on 19 March I confirmed that the same underlying principle should apply to your working relationship with staff in your department; that is, you should not invite or communicate with your staff in relation to attendance at events associated with your personal spiritual beliefs, You noted that you made these invites in good faith and did not apply any pressure to attend. However, given that the relevant staff are managerially accountable to you, I highlighted that they may feel compelled to attend on the basis that you are an active member of CRC."

Mr Wilson undertook an investigation into the concerns raised by staff about the Discover Life Group, He worked with Raphael Zernoff, a Spiritual Care Co-ordinator in the DSRCC in compiling this report, which is dated 30 April 2012. It is beyond the scope of these reasons to analyse the details of this report but our impression is of a balanced and thorough investigation. Many of the allegations raised against the CRC were not accepted or not accepted in full by the investigators. Nevertheless the report recommended that future provision needed to be broad based and ecumenical so as to meet the needs of all Christian denominations. One factor raised in the report is of particular importance in this case: the authors highlighted that junior staff had felt under pressure not to respond negatively to invitations to participate in the Discover Life Group's activities. The authors referred expressly in this context to the fact that the Claimant was head of the department and an active member of the CRC.

The Claimant's first response to this report was in an email dated 1 May 2012; she described it as "an exceptionally well put together report". Following the publication of the report, a copy was sent to the CRC and it was asked whether it wished to participate in redesigned services meeting the broad based and ecumenical objectives: the CRC declined. Mr Wilson agreed however that it could provide a letter to service users explaining why the Discover Life Group had stopped. Subsequently the Claimant brought in a number of packs from the Church for distribution: these included flyers, a DVD and sweets. We have looked at this material and agree with Mr Wilson's evidence that this was not the letter of explanation that he had envisaged from the Church. Mr Wilson chose not to distribute this material.

The Claimant provided some detailed comments on Mr Wilson's and Mr Zernoff's report in a letter dated 8 May 2012 (pages 216 to 219). Once again she described the report in positive terms, "thorough and professional". She asked questions about the report's recommendations that the practices of laying on of hands and speaking in tongues should not be engaged in on Trust sites. The letter shows that the Claimant was well aware of the recommendations in the report.

We have set out this passage of events in some detail as, whilst it does not give rise to specific justiciable issues of discrimination or harassment, it is said by the Claimant to be evidence of a general hostility to Christianity in general and the CRC in particular within the Trust. We do not accept this. The evidence shows that the Respondent was receptive to the idea of establishing regular Christian worship at the John Howard Centre: it was the way in which that worship was conducted which gave rise to allegations of improper pressure on staff and service users. It is notable in this context that service users are vulnerable persons with mental health conditions. Furthermore, there was cogent evidence that services were not broad based and ecumenical as the Respondent had requested but were more narrowly focused on the Charismatic and Evangelical strands of Christian belief. Mixed in with all of this was the Claimant's own conduct in respect of RH which she persisted in despite being told by her line manager to desist because of a potential conflict of interest.

We are unsurprised therefore that the Claimant received counselling and an informal warning from Mr Wilson in February and March 2012 respectively about the boundaries between her spiritual and professional life. We are also unsurprised that the Discover Life Group was suspended.

It is notable that the CRC was invited to remodel its services so that they could continue but the CRC declined to do this. This is not consistent with a conscious or subconscious anti-Christian animus. Nor do we find that the Respondent was against the CRC in particular, it merely wished that when on its premises, the Church acted in a way which was multi-denominational rather than confined to its own regular style of worship.

It is quite clear from this that Ms Wasteney had a long record of overstepping the bounds of what is appropriate and acceptable at work. It is also clear that, despite what Andrea Minichielo Williams says ("The NHS is increasingly dominated by a suffocating liberal agenda that chooses to bend over backwards to accommodate certain beliefs but punishes the Christian," – as she told the Daily Mail) this hospital went above and beyond what was necessary to try to accommodate this somewhat extreme evangelical group. In fact, it could be argued that they were irresponsible to have subjected the vulnerable people in their care to this kind of religious extremism.

But then we come to the young Muslim woman (referred to as EN) who made the complaint of harassment and bullying against Ms Wasteney.

She was a newly-qualified occupational therapist who had a 12 month contract at the hospital and Ms Wasteney was her manager.

EN had moved from Birmingham to London to take up the position and was feeling particularly alone and vulnerable. The original complaint against Ms Waveney – which runs to 8 pages - shows just how intense was the pressure she applied to her subordinate colleague, EN.

The employment tribunal found that Victoria Wasteney had not suffered religious discrimination. It said that she had been disciplined by the hospital because she misused her seniority over EN (the Muslim junior) to try to impose her views. It said that it would not have mattered whether these were religious or political views, the matter was not about religion but about abuse of authority.

The Christian Legal Centre is now funding an appeal against this decision that will add to the significant amount of money that the East London NHS Trust has already had to spend on stopping Ms Wasteney abusing her position to proselytise.

Andrea Williams is doing this because it will enable her to repeat her claims that this is a 'clear case of religious discrimination', that Christians are disadvantaged at work etc. etc. etc. It will enable her to reinforce the perception that there is persecution of Christians in the workplace. It will enable her to fire another bullet at the heart of the Equality Act.

But her claims are baseless. She relies on the fact that no-one is going to read 25 pages of legal reasoning to find out the true story – even if you can find the judgments in the first place.

The Daily Mail said in a headline that Ms Wasteney claims she was "sacked" from her job (although in the body of the story it admits that she was not sacked and is still working for the Trust). Too late – the perception that she was fired from her job simply for praying is now part of the mythology.

In a BBC story about the case this week, Ms Wasteney was given free range to once more give a partial account of the story. In an interview Victoria Derbyshire put the complaints to her and she answers slickly. But where was the real challenge here? Where is the other side of the story?

The NHS Trust obviously wants the whole thing to go away and to be able to get on with its job of caring for patients. It certainly doesn't want to fund yet another very expensive court case. It has asked Ms Wasteney not to speak to the media. She takes no notice.

We have been told repeatedly that the NHS is in dire financial straits, particularly mental health services. Is it really in the best interest of everyone to allow this case to proceed any further when it is clear that it has no merit? Will Ms Wasteney just for once put her religion aside for the greater good and stop this nonsense now? And if Andrea Minichielo Williams is really as deeply Christian as she claims, won't she spare the hospital this unwanted and foolish distraction and let it get on with its job of caring for sick people?

On a wider point, when people like Williams talk about "Christians", who is she referring to? Do all Christians go along with her aggressive and dishonest approach?

We often hear people demanding that moderate Muslims distance themselves from the fanatics.

Perhaps it is now time for sensible Christians to do the same with the likes of the Christian Legal Centre, which is bringing their religion into disrepute.

NUS votes to work with group accused of supporting Islamic extremism

News | Thu, 23rd Apr 2015

The National Union of Students has voted to work with Islamic 'civil rights' group Cage, against the Government's counter-terror and counter-radicalisation strategy.

The motion approved by the NUS 'reaffirms' their "opposition to PREVENT", the Government programme whose stated aim is to "stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism" by facing the "the ideological challenge we face from terrorism and aspects of extremism, and the threat we face from those who promote these views".

The NUS describes Cage as a "civil liberties group", but it was widely criticised when its links to Mohammed Emwazi became known. Cage spokesman Asim Qureshi described Mohammed Emwazi, known as 'Jihadi John', as a "beautiful young man".

Fellow CAGE leader Cerie Bullivant refused to condemn Emwazi's actions and walked off in the middle of a Sky News interview by Kay Burley when asked to condemn Emwazi. He said her question was "Islamophobic and racist".

Two charities withdrew funding from Cage after the revelations.

NSS spokesperson Stephen Evans said: "To actively work against people who are trying to counter radicalisation and extremism is ill-informed and reckless.

"It is one thing to have concerns about the Counter Terrorism and Security Act, it is quite another to work with a group that has a troubling history of supporting Islamism.

"The NUS's defence of free speech seems to extend to allowing extremist speakers on campus, but they have no objection to enforcing 'safe space' and 'no-platform' policies which curb free speech on university campuses. The National Union of Students appears to be giving Islamism a free pass."

The conference voted to not give "fascists a platform in the student movement".

The NUS also reaffirmed its opposition to 'Islamophobia'. Their Liverpool conference voted on a motion stating that the organisation would "actively campaign against racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and fascism".

The NUS say: "Islamophobia is massively on the rise across Europe, is state-sponsored and legitimised by the mainstream media."

"The Government is manipulating public perceptions and current global events to scale back civil liberties and freedoms as part of a political agenda."

Mr Evans said: "What is their definition of Islamophobia? Do they just mean anti-Muslim bigotry, or do they include criticism or satire of Islam as well? This is a vital distinction."

According to reports from those at the conference, the motion was voted through without debate.

The full list of motions can be read here.

NSS calls on Ed Miliband to clarify comments on workplace religious freedom

News | Mon, 20th Apr 2015

The National Secular Society has called on Labour leader Ed Miliband to clarify recent comments he made during an election visit to an evangelical church.

Speaking on Sunday 19^th April at Praise House, a church in Croydon, the Labour leader said he would "look at" religious freedom after he was asked about recent cases involving Christians expressing their beliefs in the workplace. He replied that "the articulation of people's Christian faith is a thing that they should be, absolutely, allowed to do."

He said that "religious freedom is incredibly important and that's something we prize in our country."

"We must do everything we can to make sure that that religious freedom is protected and I am very clear about that."

"So absolutely we should look at how we protect the freedom of expression that people have, I think it is an important part of religious freedom both here and around the world."

However, The National Secular Society has called upon the Labour leader to clarify his comments and acknowledge that everybody's rights have to be balanced fairly.

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "Both the UK and European courts have achieved a remarkably good balance in allowing people to manifest their beliefs, but not to the extent that they impinge unfairly on the rights of others. It's therefore important to know what additional measures Mr Miliband feels may be necessary to protect religious freedom.

"Religious and other beliefs should be accommodated as far as is possible and reasonable. But there are clearly cases where employees cannot be absolutely free to manifest their beliefs, particularly when it results in them refusing to provide services to people on the basis of that belief.

"There is widespread persecution of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa where freedom of religion is non-existent, and it is wrong to compare that with the few Christians in the UK who feel discriminated against because they are not permitted to express homophobic views at work."

Recent high profile court cases include Ladele and McFarlane. In both cases the claimants objected on religious grounds to dealing with same sex couples in the same way they would with opposite sex couples. The European Court of Human Rights rejected their claims that UK law did not sufficiently protect their rights to freedom of religion.

A recent consultation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that some evangelical Christians believed that Christianity had "lost status" because of equality laws.

The EHRC also found that some "wanted to be able to discriminate on the basis of their religion in employment (for example, when recruiting new staff) and when providing goods, services and facilities."

The Labour leader also praised faith schools and encouraged the role of faith groups in providing services.

Mr Miliband said he had seen hostility towards religious groups running community projects when he was a Cabinet Minister in the Labour Government. He commented that faith groups have got to be taken at "face value" when they offer to provide services.

"We've got to take people at face value, if you like, and say what is it you are trying to do and can you achieve change for the community, can you make a difference and if you can you should be able to do it?"

"We shouldn't worry about people's motivations in how they want to do that."

Stephen Evans commented: "People should be entitled to fair, just and non-discriminatory public services. While many faith groups do important work within the community, it's naïve to take them all at face value. Where public money is provided to religious groups to deliver public services, all contracts should contain clear equality, non-discrimination and non-proselytising clauses".

"And at a time when schools are being exploited by evangelical groups as part of their missionary work, there are very valid reasons for being concerned about the motivations of religious groups seeking to be involved in young people's education", he added.

What do the minor parties have to say about secularism and religion?

Opinion | Tue, 21st Apr 2015

From the Wessex Regionalists to the Christian People's Alliance, the NSS presents some highlights on secularism and religion from the minor parties' manifestos.

Which party wants to place unicorns on a list of protected animals? Who wants to give married couples £10,000 if they go on "marital awareness training"? Which manifesto argues that communism and cross-dressing have taken over non-religious schools? Read on to find out more…

As part of our General Election coverage, we've been going through the party manifestos to reveal their stance on secularist issues like faith schools and the role of religion in public services.

We've already picked out the highlights from the Conservatives, the LibDems, the Greens, UKIP, Labour, the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Now we take a look at some of the smaller parties.

Christian Party

The Christian Party says that "Britain's education system is rooted in our Judaeo-Christian heritage" but has been taken over by "communistic ideals." It warns of pupils cross-dressing in schools, and the Government's "pro-homosexuality" agenda. Their manifesto states that education has been "eroded by the secular and multifaith agendas".

The Party says they will "refocus education on the basics of the core curriculum of reading, writing, mathematics, science, languages and modern studies".

The party argues that there is "waste of education resources on peripheral" activities, but despite this they argue that "the obligation to assemble pupils for an act of Christian worship, including praise and prayer, should no longer be ignored."

The Party challenges the teaching of evolution, and believes that "the Science curriculum should include the evidence of creation and design in the Universe, presenting evolution as an alternative hypothesis rather than falsely depicting it as a proven fact."

PHSE will be reformed with "Christian content." The party "supports a wide variety of corrective measures in schools" and promises to "bring normality back to childhood". They state that "Sex education needs to be in the context of traditional marriage. The Christian Party will promote true love in its education policy."

They also believe that the current Government's plans on sex education "will sexualise children at an early age." Their manifesto states: "Given the coalition's pro-homosexuality agenda, sex education for five-year-olds amount to state-sponsored sexual indoctrination."

The Christian Party warns, "the cross-dressing of primary school children is an abuse of the school environment and of the children themselves. We resist the use of schools for the LBGT political agenda, such as promotional months, and government backing and financial support for their literature and campaigns. The Christian Party continues to call for the end of the promotion in schools of the LGBT agenda, which is now appearing in other subjects across the curriculum."

On healthcare, the Christian Party says the NHS should not provide services "based on lifestyle choices" such as abortion.

The Christian Party claim they will "will restore proper respect for our neighbour by removing the inequalities in our equalities legislation."

Their full manifesto can be read here

Christian People's Alliance

The Christian People's Alliance say "the breakdown of marriage is costing the country £49 billion." They plan to "change the whole culture of our society" and claim this will "claw back substantial amounts of this money."

Though they aim to reduce the size of government and cut spending, they want every married couple to be given £10,000 "on the occasion of their first marriage", if the couple go to three sessions of "marital awareness training."

Another grant will be available to parents who have a child "within wedlock."

On education, the party believes that "sex education should teach the high value of marriage for personal and societal enrichment" and that sex outside of marriage exposes "participants" to sexually transmitted diseases and abortion. They say children should be taught that "'safe sex' is a misnomer" and that "marriage is the best protection."

They stress the importance of teaching children to "preserve one's sexual organs for marriage."

The party states "all students should understand that Christian worship benefits society" but that pupils should only participate in collective worship at school if they wish to. They plan for a "broad curriculum" in faith schools.

The Christian People's Alliance call for "strong principles of good and evil" in the health service.

On the environment, the manifesto laments that "all of western man has never been totally committed to Genesis" and notes that not all atheists are "eco-friendly." To tackle climate change, the party lists "practical steps" which include "encouraging repentance of previous abuse", seeking "God's blessing on the world" and avoiding the waste of food. "Ecological balance is biblical", they say.

Their full manifesto can be read here.

Communist Party

The website of the Communist Party is "committed to secularism" and argues that "religious institutions shouldn't play a role in the state and vice versa." The party says that it is not anti-religious, and notes that many of its members are "ministers of different denominations and religions."

They explain: "Despite the fact that modern British society is very secular, it's institutions aren't. The Church of England is still the official state religion and has its own unelected representatives in Parliament. Communists argue that religious belief should be a matter for the individual. A socialist Britain would be one that celebrates and recognises the diverse traditions and beliefs of the peoples' of Britain, guarantees the freedom of religious belief and worship for all without having any institutionalised privileges for any one religion or church."

Their website can be found here.

Left Unity

Left Unity would "end the charitable status of fee-paying schools, and also withdraw state funding from schools or colleges which exclusively promote any one religious belief system, including Christianity, unless such establishments have an open, secular enrolment policy."

The party proposes abolishing the House of Lords and the monarch. Their manifesto argues that "the Church of England must be dis-established, its privileges ended and its wealth confiscated."

They state that "media myths have fuelled Islamophobia."

Their full manifesto can be read here.

Liberty GB

Liberty GB promises a "zero tolerance" strategy toward Islam and "any Islamic practice that conflicts with traditional British laws or values."

They aim at "limiting the size of the Muslim community and preventing political Islam from gaining influence. This is essential to ensure a peaceful future and preserve our way of life."

Liberty GB vows to "enact a law of sedition specifically aimed at eradicating Islamism, and re-classify acts of terrorism as treason. Treason will carry the possibility of the death sentence for all those involved. Both will carry a sentence of possible expulsion from the UK."

"No infringement of British law will be tolerated or ignored for the sake of 'community relations'. Religious or cultural norms and values will no longer be considered as mitigating circumstances to gain a light sentence or as a reason to evade prosecution."

The party would prohibit Muslims from holding public office.

Their full manifesto can be read here

Monster Raving Loony Party

The Monster Raving Loony Party has quite a short 'manicfesto' online this time, which includes making unicorns a protected species. If new policy is forthcoming, we will update this post.

Their website can be found here

Wessex Regionalist Party

A Wessex Regionalist Government promises to "phase out religious involvement in publicly-funded education" and to "return control of education policy and funding to local councils."

Their website can be found here

You can read our blog about the major parties manifestos here.