UK: CHRISTIANS HAVE NO RIGHT TO REFUSE TO WORK ON SUNDAYS, RULES JUDGE
Monday, 31 December 2012
A new ruling by a High Court judge – the first on the issue in nearly a decade – says that Christians have no right to decline working on Sunday as it is not a “core component” of their beliefs.
The judgment – which upholds an earlier decision – means that individual Christians do not have any protection from being fired for not working on Sundays.
Campaigners said the decision puts Christians at a disadvantage to other religions and means the judiciary are deciding what the core beliefs of Christians can be, which they say is an interference in the right to practise religion.
The judgment was issued by Mr Justice Langstaff as he ruled on an appeal brought by a Christian woman who was sacked after she refused to work on Sundays at a care home.
Celestina Mba claimed the council she worked for pressured her to work on Sundays and threatened her with disciplinary measures – even though other workers were willing to take the shifts. The 57 year-old, from Streatham Vale, south London, worships every Sunday at her Baptist church, where she is also part of the ministry team offering pastoral care and support to the congregation.
She said that when she took the position in 2007 providing respite care for children with severe learning difficulties at the Brightwell children’s home in Morden, south-west London managers initially agreed to accommodate the requirements of her faith.
But within a few months of starting the job, Miss Mba said managers began pressuring her to work on Sundays.
She found herself repeatedly allocated Sunday shifts and threatened with disciplinary measures unless she agreed to compromise her church commitments, meaning she had no alternative but to resign from the job she loved, she said.
The care worker launched an unsuccessful legal claim in February this year and this month lost her appeal in the High Court.
Her constructive dismissal case was funded by the Christian Legal Centre which instructed Paul Diamond, a leading religious rights barrister.
Mr Justice Langstaff, who as president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal is the most senior judge in England and Wales in this type of case, upheld the lower tribunal’s ruling which said it was relevant that other Christians did not ask for Sundays off.
The fact that some Christians were prepared to work on Sundays meant it was not protected, the court said.
The senior judge said that a rule imposed by an employer which affected nearly every Christian would have a greater discriminatory impact than one which only affected a few.
There was evidence that many Christians work on Sundays and this was relevant in “weighing” the impact of the employers’ rule, and the earlier decision did not involve an error of law, he added.
Campaigners said the ruling showed that Christians are being treated less favourably than people from other religions, such as Muslims, Jews and Sikhs. They pointed to cases where the courts offered protection to other religions even when only a minority of adherents were affected.
In 2008 Sarika Watkins-Singh, then 14, successfully claimed she was a victim of unlawful discrimination because she had been excluded from school in Aberdare, south Wales, for breaking a jewellery ban by refusing to remove a “kara” bangle which she said was central to her faith.
But in her case the court did not examine how many Sikhs wanted to wear similar items of jewellery.
The judgment in Miss Mba’s case will fuel concerns that judges are promoting secularism. A report from the cross-party Christians in Parliament group warned earlier this year that there was a lack of religious literacy among judges, politicians and officials.
Andrea Williams, director of Christian Concern, said of the latest ruling: “The court in this case created an unrealistic test which means that people like Celestina who wish to respect the Sabbath will be forced out of the workplace.
“The court seems to be requiring a significant number of adherents of the Christian faith to observe a particular practice before the court is willing to accept and protect the practice.
“In the past year we have seen mandatory tests of faith in relation to the wearing of crosses by Christians, belief about marriage between a man and a woman and now observing the Sabbath when in all cases reasonable accommodation could have been made.
“Such tests do not appear to be similarly applied to Muslims who are permitted to wear the hijab and observe prayers and Sikhs with the kara bracelet.”
In 1994, when Sunday trading in England was liberalised shopworkers were given a guarantee that working would be strictly voluntary, but the guarantee did not apply to people in other sectors.
The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations, published in 2003, say employers must justify Sunday working as a “legitimate business need” and does not give a blanket right to Christians not to work.
If employers fail to treat staff fairly and proportionately, the employee may be able to claim discrimination, the rules add.
The last ruling by judges was when a quarry worker claimed his Christian beliefs had been treated with “contempt” by employers who tried to force him to work on Sundays in 2003.
Stephen Copsey lost his case at the Court of Appeal in 2005, with judges ruling his employer had “compelling economic reasons” for insisting that he worked on Sundays.
Yvette Stanley of Merton council, Miss Mba’s former employers, said it did its best to allow religious practice but also had a duty to meet the needs of the disabled children for whom it cares and added: “We are pleased with the outcome of this second tribunal. Staff recruited in the respite care service are advised that it is by its nature a weekend service.”
WE CAN’T DISSENT AGAINST ‘NEW GAY ORTHODOXY‘, SAYS CHRISTIAN CHARITY
Gay and lesbian rights activists are seeking to be the new “moral enforcers” and it is Christian religious conservatives who now need protection to be allowed to dissent against “the new orthodoxy”, it was claimed.
Core Issues Trust, a Christian charity, is challenging a ban on its London bus advertisement reading: “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!” It was a response to a bus poster campaign by gay rights group Stonewall carrying the message: “Some people are gay. Get over it!”
Paul Diamond, for the charity, told appeal judges that at the heart of the case was the “ironical” situation in modern British society where ancient Biblical scriptures, which played an important role in forming the nation’s morals and legal system, were now in danger of containing views which could no longer be expressed “in a land with a reputation for free speech”.
Mr Diamond said Christian scriptures only permitted sexual relationships between one man and one woman in marriage and people should be entitled to express that view. He said the case raised the question: “Is the belief that homosexuality is a sin worthy of respect in a democratic society?”
The charity accuses the Mayor of London Boris Johnson of unlawfully using his position as chairman of Transport for London (TfL) to obtain the ban in order to secure the gay vote and advance his 2012 re-election campaign.
High Court judge Mrs Justice Lang rejected the claim in March, ruling: “In my view, such unlawfulness has not been established on the evidence.”
Mr Johnson said the advertisement was “offensive to gays” and could lead to retaliation against the Christian community.
Mr Diamond is appealing that an “email trail” not disclosed by the mayor’s office at the High Court, and discovered later following a freedom of information request, supported its claim over Mr Johnson’s role in banning the advertisement.
The trust says its works with gay people seeking to change their lifestyles, but rejects the idea of offering a gay cure.
It is asking the appeal judges to uphold its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which it says has been violated by the ban. It is also relying on Article 9, which protects the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Mrs Justice Lang ruled TfL’s decision-making process “fell below the standards to be expected of a responsible public body,” but the trust’s Article 10 rights were outweighed by the rights of gays to respect for their private and family life under article 8(1). She said TfL was legally justified in imposing the prohibition because the advertisement would cause “grave offence” to gays and “increase the risk of prejudice and homophobic attacks”.
Mr Diamond argued there was “nothing aggressive” in the advertisement. “We were simply trying to engender a debate. People don’t have the same views. There is an alternative.”