Newsline 14 March 2014

Christian sacked from nursery did not suffer religious discrimination, appeals tribunal rules

News | Wed, 12th Mar 2014

An Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal from a woman who claimed she had been fired from her job in a nursery because of her religious beliefs.

The woman, referred to as Ms Grace, was employed as a manager at an Islington nursery, Places for Children. She was dismissed from her employment after nine months because she held an unauthorised training session for staff members, which gave rise to complaints by some of those who attended it. She had also told a pregnant staff member that she had dreamed that her colleague would suffer a miscarriage, which had made the colleague "extremely scared".

Ms Grace told another member of staff that "something was going to happen in the nursery which would have a massive ripple effect", which left staff members uneasy and scared.

The managing director of Places for Children, Carol Jenkins, fired Ms Grace, writing to her:

"You have behaved extremely unprofessionally in your role as a Nursery Manager. Your actions and behaviour in regards to the training session and your discussions with staff members within the nursery have damaged the trust and confidence we have in you, to the extent that we are no longer able to trust you to act in a professional manner.

"In the light of all these factors my decision is to uphold the allegation that your behaviour towards other members of staff at the Islington Nursery is deemed as inappropriate and harassment. In view of the seriousness of your actions, my decision is to dismiss you from the organisation on the grounds of gross misconduct."

Ms Grace then claimed that she had been sacked because of her religion and brought an action under the Equality Act. She wanted compensation of £500,000 so she could "buy a family home and care for her two children."

Ms Grace made four allegations of detriment. The first was the fact of her dismissal; the second was that an employee from Human Resources had told her it was not company policy for the her to hold Bible Sessions with individuals who had consented to it; thirdly, Carol Jenkins had allegedly said to Ms Grace, "don't you think it is unsuitable to have discussions about God in the workplace" and finally that Miss Jenkins allegedly said: "your conversations with members of staff during break times about God are unsuitable".

The EAT agreed with the original tribunal ruling:

"that the Claimant in this matter was not treated as she was because of her religion, but rather because of the way in which she manifested or shared it. This indeed was the Claimant's own conclusion. She agreed that she would have been treated in the same way regardless of her particular religion or had she had no religion at all. This cannot therefore constitute direct discrimination because of her religion and in the circumstances the claim fails."

The EAT said that there was no clear distinction between holding a religious belief and manifesting it. Holding a religious belief was protected absolutely under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights but manifesting that belief only had qualified protection.

It pointed to guidance issued in 2011 by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission which reads:

"Manifestations of a religion or belief could include treating certain days as days for worship or rest; following a certain dress code; following a particular diet; or carrying out or avoiding certain practices. There is not always a clear line between holding a religion or belief and the manifestation of that religion or belief. Placing limitations on a person's right to manifest their religion or belief may amount to unlawful discrimination; this would usually amount to indirect discrimination.

Example:

An employer has a 'no headwear' policy for its staff. Unless this policy can be objectively justified, this will be indirect discrimination against Sikh men who wear the turban, Muslim women who wear a headscarf and observant Jewish men who wear a skullcap as manifestations of their religion."

The EAT speculated that Nadia Eweida - the woman who sued British Airways because she claimed it had banned her from wearing a cross - "would surely now succeed under sections 13 or 21(3) of the 2010 Act against her employers in an Employment Tribunal as well as under Article 8 before the Strasbourg Court."

In the matter of Ms Grace, the original tribunal had ruled – and the Appeals Tribunal agreed – that Ms Grace was not treated as she was because of her religion but rather because of the way in which she manifested or shared it."

The appeal was dismissed.

Commenting on the case, Alan Chalmers of DLA Partners, said: "This case highlights the fact that employers can face a minefield when dealing with employees who manifest or practise their religion or beliefs in a way in which the employer or other employees consider inappropriate. Employers must remember that they should not place an individual at a detriment for manifesting their religious beliefs (for example by praying at work), but may be able to proceed with a fair disciplinary procedure if that individual manifests that belief in a way that is inappropriate."

Read the full EAT ruling here

IHEU defends freedom of thought for all at the UN

News | Wed, 12th Mar 2014

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) has spoken out at the Human Rights Council (HRC) to defend freedom of thought for all – including the non-religious.

IHEU has expressed concern that the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief is often contracted to "religious freedom" when a speaker really means the full right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, which expressly includes non-religious views.

Addressing the UNHRC, Elizabeth O'Casey, IHEU's new head of delegation at Geneva, explained the importance of this language and urged the UN to discuss and promote this human right in its full, inclusive sense.

The statement drew on IHEU's written submission to the council, "The denial of the right to free thought for those with no religion", which in turn makes reference to the IHEU Freedom of Thought report.

IHEU (of which the National Secular Society is a member) is taking part at the United Nations Human Rights Council's 25th Session as an NGO representing humanists' broad human rights concerns with particular focus on secularism, humanist values and the rights of the non-religious.

The speech can be read in full below:

United Nations Human Rights Council, 25th Session (3rd – 28th March 2014)
Interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
Elizabeth O'Casey, Head of IHEU'S Delegation to the UNHRC

The denial of the right to free thought for those with no religion

The right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief for every human being is protected by Articles 18 of the ICCPR and UDHR.

The right to free thought is the precursor and progenitor of other fundamental freedoms. It is a complete and unlimited right, and should be protected unconditionally.

As the Special Rapporteur notes in his fine report, freedom of religion or belief applies to a broad variety of beliefs, not just those of predefined "classical" religions. Despite this, the right to free thought of those with no religion is, by many, either forgotten or knowingly violated. Currently, 19 states punish "apostasy"; some with the potential penalty of death. Other states ban atheists from holding public office, prohibit them from identifying as atheists, or force them to subscribe to religion to gain citizenship.

In his report, the Special Rapporteur talks of "religious hatred". Quite plainly Mr President, hatred against the non-religious is present globally also. We urge the Council to recognise this fact by incorporating language that expressly acknowledges hatred against non-believers in its reports or resolutions on the issue.

We ask also that when drafting resolutions on the right to freedom of religion or belief, the Council ensures that the non-religious are one of the groups explicitly noted as having freedom to believe, and that when mentioning the persecution of religious minorities, the persecution of the non-religious is mentioned also.

The language used by the UN has fundamental significance, in its descriptive and prescriptive capacity, and in its power to influence international discourse. We urge the Special Rapporteur and Council to bear this in mind when considering the discrimination and persecution suffered by so many non-believers globally.

Source: International Humanist and Ethical Union

University of Edinburgh students win “best secularist student activity” award

News | Tue, 11th Mar 2014

This year's National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Student Societies (AHS) award for the best secularist student activity has been awarded to University of Edinburgh Humanist Society in recognition of their recent efforts to influence and change Edinburgh University Students Association (EUSA) policy.

The prize fund, sponsored by National Secular Society, aims to support student groups who have organised events or activities that have helped promote secularism and secular values in their universities.

The University of Edinburgh Humanist Society's secular activities involved attempts to promote secularism on campus by submitting two motions to their university's student association.

In one motion submitted by the Society, they called on EUSA to identify itself as a secular organisation and to be proactive in promoting secularism to the student body and secular ideas as part of its wider social activism. They asked EUSA to "challenge negative connotations around the word and ideology". The motion fell, with students "feeling uncomfortable" voting in favour of it.

The motion had been preceded by another put forward by the Society a few weeks before, which sought to disallow imposed or directed segregation, based on any characteristic (but aimed at gender given the UUK guidance published at the end of last year and increasing attempts to segregate by gender at events on campus). The motion explicitly noted that individuals should be allowed to segregate themselves, if they wanted.

The "Separate But Equal" motion also fell, this time amid accusations of "open Islamophobia" against the Society. Only about 8 people out of 70 voted for it. The Society's Secretary, Ian Scott, reported that a number of people indicated to him afterwards that they privately supported the motion, but given that two Muslim women had spoken out so strongly against it, they didn't see it as their place to vote on the issue. Others indicated that they also supported the motion, but were afraid of being seen as Islamophobic if they were to have voted in favour of it.

Of the motions, the University of Edinburgh Humanist Society said: "We would like to think that our motions have benefitted the student body by bringing the issue of secularism into consciousness. Although the motions failed, student council debate was an opportunity to articulate secularism and combat negative connotations (e.g. "militant, anti-religious" etc).

Rory Fenton, President of the AHS, said: "This is a well-deserved award. Edinburgh University Humanists have been consistent and tireless campaigners for secularism in their students' union. Their actions have been an important reminder that secularism can be practised as well as preached by our societies."

Luke Hecht, President of University of Edinburgh Humanist Society, said: "It is encouraging to be recognised for our efforts. Although these two motions were rejected, we intend to keep raising the issue of secularism on campus and this award will help us to raise awareness of our future campaigns."

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "The issue of secularism is much misunderstood and sometimes deliberately misrepresented. We therefore have a big job raising awareness of its value – even for religious believers. These debates are a start. It is clear that there is a big hill to climb, but –as they say – every journey starts with the first step. I hope the University of Edinburgh group will keep on plugging the message until it gets through. And that they will stand as an example to others. Congratulations for making such an excellent start."

The bishop’s fantasy secularism

Opinion | Tue, 11th Mar 2014

The Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth, Philip Egan, has given a lecture at King's College in London in which he launched a full frontal attack on secularism. But the secularism the Bishop denounces, argues Terry Sanderson, is simply a figment of his imagination.

This week the Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth, Philip Egan, gave a lecture at King's College in London about whether Christianity "should still have a voice in the public square."

The bishop, of course, concludes that it should. Needless to say, he concludes far more than that.

He begins his talk with a full frontal attack on secularism, averring that:

"Hard-line secularists, such as the National Secular Society, seek systematically to exclude any religious expression from the public square; as Alasdair Campbell once said, 'We don't do God.' Soft-core secularists, on the other hand, happily wish each other 'Merry Christmas.' They tolerate Britain's Christian traditions, as long as those who practice those traditions do not expect any privileges or discriminate against the rights of others."

In making his case for what amounts to a theocratic basis for society, he then repeats all the tired and debunked stories of supposed restrictions on religious expression in Britain – he talks of 'banned' crosses, renaming Christmas a 'Winter Festival', political-correctness-gone-mad and so on. He even invokes that cockeyed visionary Bishop Nazir Ali, one of the chief proponents of the 'Christian persecution' narrative. He also quotes extensively, like a star-struck fan, from the ultra-conservative Pope Benedict XVI.

Did you know, by the way, that the Pope Benedict's visit to Britain was a resounding success, marred only by the protests of a noisy, but tiny minority? (Unfortunately for Bishop Egan, the Catholic Church's own research says differently).

Bishop Egan said in his lecture:

"Secularism is too flimsy a basis for British culture. It cannot guarantee human flourishing nor sustain long term the advances the British people have achieved, the great value placed on freedom of speech, freedom of political affiliation and respect for the rule of law, with a strong sense of the individual's rights and duties and of the equality of all citizens before the law. Instead, secularism is producing a society without foundations, one that develops randomly on the hoof through pressure-groups, legal precedent and political expediency.

Its ring-fencing of religion to the private domain, its dissolution of the ground of ethics and the basis of law, its amnesia of the past and intentional eclipse of its Christian origins, its relativism that fosters harmful ideologies and leads to victimisation of the weak, its positivistic reduction of human knowing to the empirically verifiable, its proven inability to support stable marriages and family life, its growing restriction on religious freedom, and its innate tendency towards greater surveillance and state control, all suggest that the Church has a crucial therapeutic 'anthropological mission' within 21C British society."

That's quite a catalogue of error that secularism has fallen into. But let's have a go at rewriting that paragraph for Bishop Egan, from another point of view:

Secularism is the only way that a multicultural, multi-faith Britain can survive without succumbing to the religious warfare and sectarianism that has plagued Europe for centuries – most of it emanating from the Vatican.

Secularism can sustain and build on the advances that Britain has made – all of them achieved in the face of persistent and sometimes fanatical religious resistance. It protects freedom of speech – having, in the main, dispensed with the religious concept of blasphemy, a concept that has hobbled free expression down the centuries.

Secularism, when paired with democracy, gives everyone a free vote and a chance to decide their political stance without it being dictated from the pulpit. A secular society makes its laws based on reason and fact, not on the dogmas of a long-past era that has little connection with the lives we live now.

A secular society makes its laws based on compassion, fairness and knowledge, not on the diktats of a man who elevates himself above all others and claims his power comes from a divine source and is thereby beyond question.

The people within a secular society gain their moral guidance from a number of sources. No single source can claim to have the complete truth and no religious leader can have the power to impose his own concept of goodness. Our search is individual.

Self-determination, within the law, is a marvellous thing. Far from being a retreat into selfishness, as Bishop Egan would have it, it is something to be valued and cherished.

In a secular society, rules that make no sense to us can no longer be imposed by an over-mighty church. No divorce? No contraception? No abortion? No gay rights? All these things were illegal because of religion, and all are now legal because of secularism. We will no longer have someone else's vision of what is the 'good and right' imposed on our law. This is not the tragedy Bishop Egan portrays but the advance of compassion.

Each person is now at liberty to find their own truth and their own 'good life'. No-one will be burned at the stake any more for not agreeing with the church. There is no more "heresy". We have laws that we have made together through our democratic parliament. We do not want laws that are imposed by self-elected theocrats whose self-interest know no bounds.

But in a truly secular democracy, religion is not marginalised, it is protected and valued for those who wish to observe it.

But it is not privileged.

It is not given the special status to which it has lazily become accustomed. It will have no special input into the democratic process – we all have a right to participate on equal terms, religious and non-religious alike.

The right to worship and to assemble for the expression of religious rituals (within the law) is protected. Beyond that, religion must make its case for respect, it cannot demand it. And it can only expect to be valued on the basis of its merits, not because it feels entitlement. This applies to every other interest group, too.

The weak are protected within a secular democracy as they never can be within a theocracy. We have seen both systems in operation. In a secular democracy, such as in the USA, religion can flourish, but no particular religion can rule. It has spared America from the bloody religious wars that have raged in Europe in the past and in the Middle East at present.

In a theocracy the weak are vulnerable. When the kind of society that Bishop Egan longs for was created in Ireland during the last century, where the Church was able to impose itself on a whole nation, it became a tyranny. The weak were exploited and abused. The evidence is there and still emerging. A theocracy has nothing but persecution to offer dissenting minorities.

Bishop Egan accuses secularists of forgetting the past. Far from it, it is by remembering the past that we are convinced that secularism is the safest and best answer.

It is Bishop Egan who has rewritten history, who has edited out all the evil that his Church has perpetrated and would do all over again if it gained power.

But it never will regain power – not in Britain, anyway. And nor should any other religious authority.

The secularism that Bishop Egan denounces is a figment of his imagination and an expression of his own sense of entitlement.