Equality and Human Rights Commission reverses position on religious cases intervention

22 August 2011 by

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has reversed its plans to intervene in two European Court of Human Rights cases about religious discrimination. 

Last month the Commission announced that it would intervene in European Court of Human Rights cases on behalf of religious believers who failed to convince the UK courts that they were being discriminated against in the workplace. Two of the proposed interventions – in which the EHRC proposed a “reasonable accommodation” for religion and belief cases (an idea proposed on this blog by Aidan O’Neill QC) – courted controversy, as Alasdair Henderson explained in his post, A leap of faith?

The EHRC is now consulting the public on the cases, but the consultation document reveals that they will now be supporting the UK courts in the cases of Ladele and Mcfarlane, involving the provision of services by religious employees:

We had suggested that our intervention might put forward the idea of extending the concept of reasonable accommodation beyond disability. However, we also know that this idea needs more careful consideration than the timetable for the European Court of Human Rights allows.

Both Ladele and Mcfarlane were cases in which religious employees refusing to provide services to homosexuals on the basis that to do so would contravene their religious principle, involving a marriage registrar and relationship counsellor respectively. The criticism of the EHRC’s initial stance was that whilst it may support believers it appeared to put the organisation at odds with sexual equality.

The reversal of the EHRC’s position will be welcomed by those who thought its reasonable accommodation proposal was too radical. But there are still many unresolved issues in respect of the rights of religious believers, and as I have posted, judges are regularly being asked to make difficult and controversial decisions, particularly in the discrimination law context. The European Court may give some useful guidance to judges attempting to balance the competing rights under article 9, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and article 14, anti-discrimination.

Now that the cases have reached Strasbourg, it will be interesting to see how the court applies its ‘margin of appreciation’ doctrine, by which states are allowed a certain latitude to set policies according to their own culture and history. The shadow of Lautsi v. Italy, a controversial recent decision in which the court’s Grand Chamber reversed the court’s previous ruling that the presence of crucifixes in Italian classrooms breached human rights law, looms large (see this post). This will be of particular relevance to the other two cases, Eweida and Chaplin, both about the right of people to openly wear crucifixes at work.

One of the fascinating aspects of our semi-federal court of human rights, that is one which incorporates the social and historical context of many different states, is that the court has to find a way of accommodating them all. On issues such as religious discrimination this means allowing for the views of states such as Italy and Spain, where religious observance is still very common, as opposed to the UK, where it not. Indeed, it is easy to imagine the equivalent to the EHRC in Italy or Spain initially taking the opposite view on these cases and being pressured to reverse its position to accommodate religious viewpoints.

Although decisions are not supposed to have wider application. the court will still have those other states in mind, so will have to tread carefully. In the meantime, the EHRC consultation closes on 5th September and responses can be provided by email or post.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

2 comments


  1. FatherDougal says:

    I see a broader and much darker picture here. This is an example of how human rights and civil liberties have been over-used. From preventing mass atrocities against the vulnerable, or at least its original intentions, to modern day applications which allow for both sides of the coin to allege violations, both sides attempting to trump the other side arguing a greater violation with far greater consequences.

    Convention jurisprudence mitigates this progression by constantly referring to the convention as a ‘living instrument’. The way human rights and civil liberty protections are currently and continuously used will turn that ‘living instrument’ into a ‘dead instrument’. The ECtHR will have to make so many judgments in the future, if this continues, that eventually, the ECtHR will begin to contradict itself and the credibility of the judgments will diminish.

    1. Tim says:

      Who do you mean by ‘the vulnerable,’ FatherDougal? People say it without explaining.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: