UCAN needs your support
You are why we do what we do - report, describe, comment, review. It is to bring to your eyes just what life is like for believers across Asia that we publish UCAN.
But as you know, the effort needs to be sustained if it is to have continuing effect.
UCAN publishes some 150 stories a week in four languages across six websites. We are grateful to benefactors in Europe and the US who support us. But those countries and the Church there are under increasing financial strain and their generosity no longer covers our costs.
We need financial help from our readers to sustain our efforts. Our reporters, editors, video producers and photographers all have families and we need to support them. They do excellent jobs, but they can't do their jobs for nothing.
Will you help us to sustain UCAN? Please click here to help.
Thanks in anticipation.
Fr. Michael Kelly SJ
Christian rights are being trampled by politics, say judges
Mixed results in this week's landmark rulings on four Christians' cases have prompted two of the judges involved to speak out against political correctness.
- John Bingham
- January 17, 2013
Christians’ rights of conscience are being sacrificed on the altar of “obsessive political correctness” contrary to the values of a democratic society, two European human rights judges have claimed.
They likened the treatment of a London marriage registrar, who asked not to carry out civil partnerships because of her beliefs on homosexuality, to conscientious objectors of the past who suffered “at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition or a Nazi firing squad”.
The claims were contained [in] a vocal dissenting judgment by two of the seven European Court of Human Rights judges who sat in a landmark case on religious freedom in Britain.
In an eagerly anticipated ruling, the court in Strasbourg upheld the right of workers to wear crosses as a visible manifestation of faith – as long it does not fall foul of health and safety policies.
It concluded that the UK had failed to protect the rights of Nadia Eweida, a British Airways check-in clerk who was sent home because the small cross she wore contravened the airline’s uniform policy – a policy which has since been changed.
But it rejected claims by three other Christians who said that their right to religious freedom had been ignored.
They included Shirley Chaplin, a nurse from Exeter, who was forbidden from wearing a cross at work on "health and safety" grounds.
The court also threw out challenges by two Christians who lost their jobs for taking a stand on what they saw as a matter of conscience.
Gary McFarlane, a former Relate counsellor, and Lillian Ladele, a marriage registrar from Islington, north London, both resisted performing tasks at work they believed would amount to condoning homosexuality which they believe is against the teaching of the Bible.
Miss Ladele asking to be excused from conducting civil partnership ceremonies and Mr McFarlane indicated he would be uncomfortable providing sex advice to a same-sex couples on account of his beliefs.
The court said that where there is a clash of rights – such as between freedom of conscience and protecting gay people from discrimination – states should have a “wide margin of appreciation” to strike the balance.
It found that the British courts had not acted beyond this margin in rejecting legal challenges by the pair.
Employment lawyers claimed it meant Christians could now be “lawfully excluded” from some jobs.
Paul Lambdin, a partner at Stevens & Bolton said: “Those with religious faith will take scant comfort from the ECHR's decision to allow the wearing of a religious symbol at work (when there is no health and safety risk).
“It appears that those Christians, Muslims and others who disagree with same sex marriage and/or civil partnerships will be excluded from certain jobs.
“These cases demonstrate the difficulty of divorcing a belief from its practice.
“The practical effect is that Miss Ladele, Mr McFarlane and others with similar religious convictions may be lawfully excluded from certain jobs.”
Christian campaigners claimed that “millions” of people who hold “politically incorrect” views could now face new restrictions on expressing their opinion.
They argued that the judgment increases the risk that those who oppose same-sex marriage – due to become law later this year – could lose their jobs if they express reservations.
They claimed that it meant that people liable to express traditional views on marriage would be unofficially barred from working as teachers, council staff and hospital chaplains or acting as foster carers in some cases.
Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, which supported Miss Ladele, said: “Christians with traditional beliefs about marriage are at risk of being left out in the cold.”
Andrea Williams, whose Christian Legal Centre backed Mr McFarlane and Mrs Chaplin, added: “This judgment will make it increasingly difficult for Christians to participate fully in society."
But Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “If they had won these cases, it would have driven a coach and horses through the equality laws.
“The rights of gay people to fair and equal treatment would have been kicked back by decades.”
Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, of the Movement for Reform Judaism, said: "This has been a victory for common sense, allowing freedom of religious expression, but not at the expense of other people's rights."
Source: The Telegraph