Human rights barristers await European ruling in joined religious liberty cases
Top human rights barristers are awaiting a significant judgment on four landmark religious liberty cases this week.
Dinah Rose QC
Blackstone Chambers silk Dinah Rose QC, James Dingemans QC of 3 Hare Court and specialist religious liberty barrister Paul Diamond are all representing clients in joined up claims in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The claimants in the employment cases are seeking clarity from the ECHR on how their freedom of religion is protected by the UK Government’s current stance.
The state has instructed James Eadie QC of Blackstone to argue that where an employee is put under pressure to go against their religious belief, that person’s freedom of religion is protected because they are free to resign.
Judgment is expected to come down on Tuesday and will be closely watched by both the National Secular Society and the newly reformed Lawyers Secular Society, which referred to the case last week (7 January 2012).
The first claimant, Nadia Eweida suspended without pay by British Airways for wanting to wear a cross. She instructed Tom Ellis of Aughton Ainsworth and Dingemans.
Christian marriage registrar Lilian Ladele was threatened with dismissal when she refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. She instructed Ormerods partner Mark Jones and Rose.
The charity Christian Legal Centre has instructed Diamond to represent Relate counsellor Gary McFarlane, who was dismissed for gross misconduct when he said his Christian beliefs made him unsuitable to provide therapy for a gay couple, and nurse Shirley Chaplin, who was told she must remove her confirmation cross.
All four were told by UK courts that they had no protection under the Equality Act.
Readers' comments (1)
Muhammad Haque | 15-Jan-2013 3:32 pm
You say
"All four were told by UK courts that they had no protection under the Equality Act."
If so, are the elements who contrived the draft [and 'took part in debates' if any real debates did take place] that later became the Equality Act, going to amend the particular statute?
And what does that same statement say about the over-rated "English law" tradition which is frequently cited as a pioneer centuries before the ECHR and the United Nations Declaration came into being?
Whatever the details of today,s ruling, which you may yet get to cover as a report, the fact is that under "English courts system" ordinary people do not have much proaction.
Go to the county courts across England and wales and you can count very easily the number of "wins" that ordinary members of the p public are allowed as against the real violators of rights, the local councils, big and small corporations, rich people and the UK state agencies and Departments.
Which raises the question about the Legal Education programmes and agendas in the UK.
Those and the ‘textbooks’ are lagging behind the times and the much-advertised access to justice is a complete and utter fantasy for most people across ordinary Society!
This is acutely evident in the absence of the courts and the “legal professionals” from the arena of battles over human rights concerning health, welfare and social safety and freedoms.
The “Legal Aid” myth is just as misleading as the many myths about social security and “benefits”.
This list could go on to cover most of what remains of ‘Society’ in Britain after the revivalist NeoConservative Cultural Warfare that is being carried out under the disguise of the “Coalition”.
Where are the “lawyers campaigning selflessly and on principles for decency, justice and fairness” for the hundreds of thousands and more whose liberties are being looted right in front of the Lawyers by the CONDEM attacks?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment