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.

Comments are closed.

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


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

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.

%d bloggers like this: