Slavery, beliefs and the Human Rights Act

Should the Human Rights Act be repealled as it allows slaves to trump the right of Christians to man

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Possibly

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not another fcuking poll Thingy! Get a life mate!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    169
#1
Following the recent legal reasoning of an employment tribunal (Ladele v LB of Islington) that religious rights are superior to other human rights, I wonder if Parliament should legislate to stop other rights trumping religious liberty? I am particularly concerned that Article 4(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights enacted into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998 appears to allow slaves to trump the rights of their owners to manifest their deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs in Article 9(1), by prohibiting the ownership of other people.


*European Convention on Human Rights, Art.9(1):
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."

*European Convention on Human Rights, Art.4(1):
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude."
 
#8
Trouble is Steve you are pitting two very umpopular concepts against each other. Slavery v's EU Human Rights Act.

Simple get shot of both of them. On these grounds I abstain.

Nutty

Sorry tio input a real post into yoiur thead.
 
#9
Nutters
Don't forget religion. That's another unpopular concept.

DE lights blue touch paper and retires to a safe distance......
Off on hols. Back next week when this thread may, or indeed may not, have gone bang.

Seeya
DE
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#10
Sorry to get too serious for Diamond Lil's but I have a glancing interest in the case referred to in Thingy's original post. But I fail to see how on earth can the Tribunal have concluded this was direct discrimination?

Direct discrimination is where you treat someone less favourably than others not because they refuse to perform this, that or the other duty, but because they are female, or black, or a Christian. That has plainly not happened here: the Tribunal has fallen into the obvious error of thinking that, because Ms. Ladele’s beliefs are in direct conflict with a duty to carry out civil partnership ceremonies, it follows that requiring her to carry them out directly discriminates against her. It doesn’t. Nothing could be plainer than that what happened here was at most indirect discrimination.

And on the issue of direct vs indirect discrimination, a charge of indirect discrimination has to show that the discrimination does not arise from a genuine occupational requirement. In other words, it could only be indirect discrimination if it was not part of a registrar's job to officiate in civil partnership ceremonies. This is the equivalent of a dwarf suing the LA Lakers for not making him a professional basketball player!

And upon looking into her case, it seems that the general consensus amongst legal bloggers is that the tribunal’s ruling is, at best, extreme, if not bordering on perverse and in the days since the ruling it transpires that Ms Ladele, whose views on marriage were described in the judgement as follows…

Employment Tribunal said:
...Ms Ladele is a Christian. Her unchallenged evidence was that she holds the orthodox Christian view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others and that marriage is the God-ordained place for sexual relations.

“She could not reconcile her faith with taking an active part in enabling same-sex unions to be formed.

“She told us that she believed this to be contrary to God’s instructions that sexual relations belong exclusively between a man and a woman within marriage.â€
…turns out to be a single mother who gave birth to a son, out of wedlock, at the age of 20!

The world's a funny place, innit? :thumright:
 
#12
SPB

I think the Tribunal words "unchalleged evidence" say it all. It is the practice to find for the side that turns up because, as her evidence has not been challenged it must be correct. It is not for the judgement panel to act as inquisitors for the respondent in these matters.

Nutty
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#13
Maybe her evidence was 'unchallenged' because her employers - rightly or wrongly - did not fancy the prospect of a protracted and potentially embarassing (and expensive) aribtration process, and attract unwanted attention, perhaps also receiving a nasty backlash from certain quarters within the local community... :? :oops:
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
#14
Sadly all to many of these types of actions are settled in this way or by an out of court settlement, cost being the over riding consideration rather than letting the whole thing run its course through the court for a full hearing.

The Police and in particular the Met. have taken the cheap route for many a year, in particular where sexual discrimination has been alledged. Much cheaper to make an out of court settlement than go the whole hog.
 
#16
sgtpepperband said:
Sorry to get too serious for Diamond Lil's but I have a glancing interest in the case referred to in Thingy's original post. But I fail to see how on earth can the Tribunal have concluded this was direct discrimination?

Direct discrimination is where you treat someone less favourably than others not because they refuse to perform this, that or the other duty, but because they are female, or black, or a Christian. That has plainly not happened here: the Tribunal has fallen into the obvious error of thinking that, because Ms. Ladele’s beliefs are in direct conflict with a duty to carry out civil partnership ceremonies, it follows that requiring her to carry them out directly discriminates against her. It doesn’t. Nothing could be plainer than that what happened here was at most indirect discrimination.

And on the issue of direct vs indirect discrimination, a charge of indirect discrimination has to show that the discrimination does not arise from a genuine occupational requirement. In other words, it could only be indirect discrimination if it was not part of a registrar's job to officiate in civil partnership ceremonies. This is the equivalent of a dwarf suing the LA Lakers for not making him a professional basketball player!

And upon looking into her case, it seems that the general consensus amongst legal bloggers is that the tribunal’s ruling is, at best, extreme, if not bordering on perverse and in the days since the ruling it transpires that Ms Ladele, whose views on marriage were described in the judgement as follows…

Employment Tribunal said:
...Ms Ladele is a Christian. Her unchallenged evidence was that she holds the orthodox Christian view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others and that marriage is the God-ordained place for sexual relations.

“She could not reconcile her faith with taking an active part in enabling same-sex unions to be formed.

“She told us that she believed this to be contrary to God’s instructions that sexual relations belong exclusively between a man and a woman within marriage.â€
…turns out to be a single mother who gave birth to a son, out of wedlock, at the age of 20!

The world's a funny place, innit? :thumright:
I read about her illegitimate son after the case. Islington are challenging the case and I have spoken to a couple of lawyers who expect her case to be overturned on appeal because it creates a legal perversity. If it stands it would allow nurses and clinicians to continue to refuse to offer treatment to LGBT people, as some did prior to this practice being appratently outlawed by Parliament (with opposition by the Church of England). The problem with the tribunal's ruling is that it legitimises racism and discrimination by Protestants against Roman Catholics. It would, in effect, undermine the Northern Ireland Peace Process by rendering the government's religious non-discrimination laws ultra vires.

I raised this poll during a moment when I was infuriated by the perversity of the decision. Civil servants have to obey the law even when it changes their terms of contract. However had this "right" for the religious to opt of oof laws that conflicted with their beliefs been around a couple of hundred years ago, Christians would still be entitled to own black people. If her case stands, it is difficult to see how the government could prosecute Saudi's who employ, for all practical purposes, slave labour in their London homes. Anti-racism legislation could also be undermined as the Bible promoted inferior rights for, in effect, ethnic minorities in Leviticus and even arguably Paul in Philemon. Only later did Paul argue that in God's Kingdom there was no male and female, etc.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top