EHRC Controversy Over "Reasonable Adustments" For Anti-Gay Workers
EHRC commissioner Angela Mason: ‘We won't seek ‘reasonable adjustments' for anti-gay workers'
www.pinknews.co.uk, 4 August 2011
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has apparently decided not to seek ‘reasonable adjustments' to be made for homophobic workers who refuse to serve gay people.
Former Stonewall chief executive Angela Mason, who is the body's only LGBT commissioner, said the EHRC had come to a "preliminary view” on the matter after previously announcing that religious people should be granted accommodations to allow them to manifest their beliefs.
In response to emails from concerned PinkNews.co.uk readers, she wrote: "The commission has already decided not to put forward ‘reasonable adjustment' arguments if we do continue with our intervention.”
Speaking to PinkNews.co.uk, she refused to comment on "private” emails but said: "We've come to a preliminary view regarding reasonable adjustment.”
The EHRC has not commented. PinkNews.co.uk understands its regulatory committee will discuss its legal approach in the next week.
The commission announced last month it would seek to intervene in four legal cases involving religious rights. Two involve workers barred from wearing crosses, but two involve employees who refused to work with gay people on the grounds of their religious beliefs.
Legal director John Wadham said ‘reasonable adjustments' could be made for such employees in the same way that disabled people are accommodated in the workplace. This could mean allowing them to swap shifts to avoid gay people.
Islington registrar Lillian Ladele took her employers to court when she was disciplined for refusing to perform civil partnerships and Bristol sex counsellor Gary McFarlane said he was unfairly dismissed because he would not work with gay couples.
The commission has been strongly criticised by Stonewall, Peter Tatchell, trade unions, secular groups and a number of MPs.
Ms Mason, who is also a councillor in Camden, north London, said: "My personal view is that I strongly believe that the decisions on Ladele and McFarlane – in our domestic courts – were the right decisions.
"The legal issues are complex but it is a question of harm. And we have to be very careful when the issue is of manifesting religious belief that is about discrimination.”
When asked whether she had been consulted before the EHRC made its announcement, she said: "A press release is a press release. I don't think it fully represented the opinion of the commission.
"It is important to carefully consider all the points and arguments that have been made and take them into account before we decide to intervene. We haven't actually been given permission to intervene yet and there are sensitive and conflicting issues.”
Speaking about her personal views, she added: "The balance of reasonable adjustment does not deal in the cases of Ladele and McFarlane.
"If we go back to the issue of harm, there is less harm involved in the wearing of crosses than the view that gay men are less equal.”
Stonewall's director of public affairs, Ruth Hunt, said: "We're pleased Ms Mason has finally commented on an issue of grave concern for many lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
"It is deeply disturbing that the EHRC appear to have decided to intervene in these cases without discussing them with the commissioner responsible for sexual orientation or indeed any other gay people.
"We hope Ms Mason will be able to use her considerable influence within the Commission to protect the rights of gay people to receive public services without discrimination.”
Peter Tatchell said: "This looks like a welcome climb down, but we need to have it confirmed by the head of the EHRC, Trevor Phillips. We should not assume anything until we get an official announcement.
"It is outrageous that the body in charge of promoting equality was prepared to compromise equal rights in order to appease religious homophobes. Allowing religious fundamentalists exemption from the laws against discrimination would have set a dangerous precedent.”
Ms Mason said the commission would seek views on the issue and hold a formal consultation if the timescale allows. The four cases are due to come before the European Court but similar cases have taken years to make it to that stage.
This autumn, a parliamentary committee is to examine whether changes should be made to discrimination laws after a raft of legal cases over Christian and gay rights.
Public hearings will be held, with MPs and Lords invited to give their views on whether current laws are adequate
Another MP condemns religious rights motion
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/, 4 August 2011
Another MP has withdrawn his name from a motion supporting proposals to give religious homophobes the right to ‘reasonable accommodation' in the workplace.
Liberal Democrat MP Adrian Sanders said the motion had caused a "great deal of upset” and did not clearly state its intentions.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission recently announced it would seek to advise in four court cases where Christians have claimed they suffered discrimination because they were not permitted to express their beliefs.
Two of the cases involve workers who refused to serve gay people – a registrar and a sex counsellor – and the EHRC said compromises and adjustments could be made for them in the same way as disabled people are accommodated at work.
Conservative MP Gary Streeter, who chairs parliament's Christian group, tabled the early day motion in support of the move but denied it supports discrimination.
Mr Sanders is one of at least four MPs who have withdrawn their name from the motion. Liberal Democrat MPs Mike Hancock and John Hemming, plus Labour MP John McDonnell have all criticised the move.
Mr Sanders told the Herald-Express: "It's caused a great deal of upset.
"It seemed to be against the persecution of people because of their faith, in this case Christian.
"It doesn't tell you what these cases are. It's actually the case that allows people to discriminate against people because they are gay.
"When a person wants to trade in a secular market place you can't have discrimination.”
Early day motions are used to draw attention to issues and do not require action from MPs. However, Mr Streeter recently announced that a parliamentary inquiry will be held this autumn about Christians' rights.
Speaking to the Western Morning News last week, Mr Streeter said: "This is about freedom of religion for everybody in this country, including Christians in their own country.
"A lot of people feel people of faith have been marginalised, and it's time to debate that.”
He added: "We have been over-tolerant to a number of groups, apart from Christianity. There's a sort of snarling anger if you do believe what the Bible says.”
Stonewall, Peter Tatchell and the Trades Union Congress have all strongly criticised the EHRC, with Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill calling the decision "deeply disturbing”.
Trades Union Congress wrote to EHRC chief executive Trevor Phillips to express "deep concern”.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/08/04/another-mp-condemns-religious-rights-motion/
TUC attacks equality commission's opt-out proposals for anti-gay stafffor PinkNews.co.uk
www.pinknews.co.uk, 21 July 2011
The Trades Union Congress says it is "deeply concerned” at the Equality and Human Rights Commission's proposals to give homophobic workers the right to avoid serving gay people.
Last week, the commission announced its plans to advise in four religious rights cases due to come before the European Court of Human Rights. One of the cases involves a Christian registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships. Another concerns the case of a sex counsellor who refused to work with gay couples.
The EHRC said that "compromises” and "reasonable accommodations” could be made for such workers in the same way that disabled people have been given employment rights – such as allowing registrars to swap shifts to avoid coming into contact with civil partnerships.
In a letter to the chair of the EHRC, Trevor Phillips, TUC general secretary Brendan Barber argued that "reasonable adjustments” for disabled people "do not impinge on the rights of others”.
He added: "The attempt to apply this concept in such cases would lead to an employer being expected to accommodate the prejudices of an employee against lesbian, gay or bisexual people if they could argue that their prejudice was based in their religion or belief.
"The law would then have been changed to declare that lesbian, gay or bisexual people were protected against discrimination – except where someone could show that they should be allowed to discriminate because they were prejudiced.”
Mr Barber added that the EHRC's announcement had generated "alarm and despondency” among gay people and urged the commission to rethink its decision.
The letter was also copied to EHRC commissioner and former Stonewall chief executive Angela Mason. Ms Mason has not yet publicly commented on the EHRC's proposals.
Earlier today, PinkNews.co.uk contacted the commission with further questions about what the ‘compromises' could entail and whether the body would support such accommodations for, eg, racist employees.
A spokeswoman said the commission would not comment further.
The Government Equalities Office has also refused to give its views on whether there should be opt-outs for religious workers who refuse to serve gay people.
A spokeswoman said: "The government is considering the applications to the European Court of Justice and will be providing submissions to the court in the autumn.”
Announcing the move earlier this month, EHRC legal director John Wadham said that ‘compromises' could avoid lengthy and costly court cases and be similar to laws for disabled people.
He said: "The idea of making reasonable adjustments to accommodate a person's needs has served disability discrimination law well for decades. It seems reasonable that a similar concept could be adopted to allow someone to manifest their religious beliefs.”
Gay rights groups have strongly criticised the proposals. Stonewall said it was "deeply disturbed” by the apparent U-turn, while Peter Tatchell called it "shocking” and "utterly appalling”.
National Secular Society will advise in religious vs gay rights cases
Pink Paper, for PinkNews.co.uk5 August 2011
The National Secular Society has been granted permission to intervene in four religious rights cases due to come before the European Court of Human Rights.
The body will submit legal arguments in four cases where plaintiffs are appealing against UK court decisions – two of which involve Christian employees who refused to provide services to gay people.
The other two concern workers who were barred from wearing religious symbols.
Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the NSS, said his organisation would focus on legal arguments, rather than expressing opinions on the cases.
In the past, the NSS has praised judgements in the case of one of the plaintiffs, Islington registrar Lillian Ladele, who said her Christian faith meant she could not carry our civil partnerships.
Mr Porteous Wood said: "These four cases have a major bearing on the extent to which employees' manifestation of their religion can impinge on others. We want to make sure that the European court considers all aspects of the relevant law.
"The NSS submission will deal with the implications for equal treatment that would be raised by the granting of greater protection to actions motivated by religious belief than is granted to actions motivated by fundamental beliefs that happen to be non-religious in nature.
"The NSS will further focus on the degree of protection which it is necessary under the convention to afford third parties who may be subjected to a detriment which is motivated by, or a manifestation of, a religious belief.
We will also deal with the significance of a religiously neutral public space for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
"Finally, we will address the nature of the limitations prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also applied to intervene in the four cases, which are likely to be heard together.
The commission stated last month that it believes ‘reasonable adjustments' could be made for such employees in the same way that disabled people are accommodated in the workplace. This could mean allowing anti-gay Christian workers to swap shifts to avoid gay people.
After strong criticism from Stonewall, Peter Tatchell, trade unions and some MPs, the body appears to have decided not to argue for ‘reasonable adjustments'.
Former Stonewall chief executive Angela Mason, who is the body's only LGBT commissioner, said this week that the EHRC had come to a "preliminary view” on the matter.
In response to emails from concerned PinkNews.co.uk readers, she wrote: "The commission has already decided not to put forward ‘reasonable adjustment' arguments if we do continue with our intervention.”