tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11339165365118369702024-03-13T21:07:08.086+00:00Religion Law BlogA commentary on developments relating to the Law, Religious Freedom and Religious Discrimination by
Neil Addison, Barrister and Author
"Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law"Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.comBlogger175125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-72500698346511140882015-08-19T17:38:00.003+01:002015-08-20T16:57:40.460+01:00Goodbye and God Bless <div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I began this Blog back in 2008 when Religious Discrimination laws were just being introduced in Britain and I have enjoyed using it to explore the developments in the Law, however I have decided that this is the right time to say goodbye and to make my last posting.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I have always used this Blog to report on, </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">and to discuss,</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> cases as they occur but over the last year or so the number of cases has reduced even if their importance has increased. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Unfortunately a Blog which is intermittent, as this one has become, is increasingly less and less valuable to its readers. Blogs really need to be updated daily if possible but weekly as a minimum and I have been unable to do that. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Rather than running a poor Blog I prefer to say goodbye now. H</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">owever I strongly recommend my readers to check out the excellent Blog </span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><a href="http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/">www.lawandreligionuk.com</a></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">run by that learned and pleasant duo, Frank Cranmer and David Pocklington.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Very Best Wishes to you all</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Neil Addison</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-52600848710672400212015-07-11T16:30:00.000+01:002015-07-12T13:33:31.979+01:00Vatican City - Trial of Józef Wesołowski<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The trial has commenced within the Vatican of, former Archbishop <span style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #373737; line-height: 24.375px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Józef Wesołowski on charges of the sexual abuse of minors. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #373737; line-height: 24.375px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #373737; line-height: 24.375px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The trial has aroused questions as to why such trials have not taken place before and why it is taking place in the Vatican rather than in the Dominican Republic where the offences are alleged to have occured. A complicating factor also leading to questions is the fact that this is the second trial of Wesolowski to have taken place in the Vatican on the same allegations. The following is an attempt to provide a simple explanation of the legal issues and systems involved</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #373737; line-height: 24.375px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #373737; line-height: 24.375px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The reason why the trial is taking place in the Vatican rather than the Dominican Republic is the fact that Wesolowski was the Papal Nuncio in the Dominican Republic at the time of the alleged offences and therefore he is protected by Diplomatic Immunity in respect of any offences he may have committed there.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #373737; line-height: 24.375px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #373737; line-height: 24.375px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">A Papal Nuncio is an ambassador sent by the Pope to a country which has diplomatic relations with the Holy See and therefore a Nununcio has the same rights and privileges as any othe Ambassador. Diplomatic Immunity is an old concept but is currently covered internationally by the </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.375px;"><a href="http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;"><b>Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961</b></span></a><span style="color: #373737;"> which has been ratified by virtually every country in the world. Under the Convention Diplomatic Immunity is unambiguously protected</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<i><b><span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.375px;">Article 29: </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24.375px;">The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. </span></span></b></i><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.375px;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span></span>
<i><b><span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.375px;">Article 31: </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24.375px;">A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.</span></span></b></i><br />
<i><b><span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24.375px;"><br /></span></span></b></i>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24.375px;">Therefore as a diplomat the normal rule is that Weslowski could neither be arrested, questioned nor prosecuted in the Dominican Republic regarding his alleged crimes. However as a diplomat of the Holy See he is subject to the criminal law of the Vatican State and that criminal law extends to prosecuting him for offences committed abroad whilst acting as Nuncio. Diplomatic Immunity protects a diplomat from the criminal law of the country he is sent to but it does not protect him from the criminal law of his own country which is why Weslowski is able to be prosecuted in the Vatican. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24.375px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24.375px;">Had Weslowski not been a Papal Nuncio but instead been an ordinary Bishop in the Dominican Republic then the question of Diplomatic Immunity would not have arisen and he could have been tried there, "Ordinary" Bishops, Cardinals etc who are not Papal Nuncios are not protected by Diplomatic Immunity. On the same basis since they are not citizens of the Vatican State they are not be subject to the laws of the Vatican State except when they are physically there. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24.375px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24.375px;">The Investigation of the allegations against Weolowski will have been carried out by the <a href="http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/stato-e-governo/struttura-del-governatorato/corpo-della-gendarmeria.html" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">Vatican Gendarmerie</span></b> </a>who are all former officers in one of the Italian Police Forces and who will follow standard Italian Police procedures. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24.375px;">The trial itself will similarly be conducted according to the rules of Italian criminal procedure which have been adopted by the Vatican since the </span><a href="http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/treaty.htm" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24.375px;" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">Lateran Treaties of 1929</span></b>.</a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24.375px;"> The Judges in the case will be lay Judges trained in Italian civil law. If convicted Wesolowki can be sentenced to imprisonment and under exisiting agreements between Italy and the Vatican he could serve any prison sentence in an Italian prison.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.375px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.375px;">The trial Wesolowski has already faced, was a separate trial under <b><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Catholic Canon Law</span></a></b> which is a code that applies to Catholic Priests and Ecclesiastics throughout the World and which relates to whether they have broken the rules which apply to them as Priests. An offence under Canon Law may well not be an offence under the Civil Law of the country in which it took place and the penalities under Canon Law are purely religious penalties. In the case of Wesolowski the penalty imposed by the Canon Law trial was that he was stripped of his priestly status and laicised, in England often referred to as "being de-frocked". </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.375px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.375px;">As already mentioned if Wesolowski had not been a Nuncio and was not covered by Diplomatic Immunity he would have been dealt with by the criminal courts of the Dominican Republic and not the courts of the Vatican; however he would still have had to be dealt with separately under Canon Law to decide if he should be laicised </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.375px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.375px;">There are therefore 2 separate trials because there are 2 separate legal systems involved. There is the Vatican State legal system, which is specific to Wesolowski and the small number of priests and Ecclesistics who are Vatican State citizens, and there is the Canon law system which applies to all Catholic Priests everywhere</span></span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-10503473315545227962015-06-27T13:52:00.005+01:002015-06-27T15:05:11.665+01:00US Supreme Court - Same Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom<div style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g5I4mL7cqsk/VY6q7HoSEgI/AAAAAAAAAbc/A9JA3NrTfLg/s1600/download.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="122" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g5I4mL7cqsk/VY6q7HoSEgI/AAAAAAAAAbc/A9JA3NrTfLg/s200/download.jpg" width="200" /></a> <span style="font-size: x-large;"> V</span><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tos2qJqhVl4/VY6q7VqiExI/AAAAAAAAAbo/qJAk8u3gKtQ/s1600/download.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="120" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tos2qJqhVl4/VY6q7VqiExI/AAAAAAAAAbo/qJAk8u3gKtQ/s200/download.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Continuing </span><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/us-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">my analysis of the US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> I am going to look at how the decison and the dissenting judgments deal with the implications of the judgment so far as Religious Freedom is concerned</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Under the<span style="color: blue;"> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">1st Amendment</span></a> </span>to the US Constitution the "free exercise" of religion is explicitly protected</span></span><br />
<i><b><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></i>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The question of a possible conflict between Religious Rights and the newly discovered (invented !) "right" to same-sex marriage was touched on in the majority judgment at P27</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing samesex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit </span></span></i></b><b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex. "</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b></i>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This reassurance is however given short shrift in the dissenting judgments</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Roberts P27 </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>"Today’s decision,for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1. Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing samesex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their </i></b></span><b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses. Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today"</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thomas P14 </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.....In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Ibid.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice. Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the </i></b></span><b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty"</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Alito P7 </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. Ante, at 26–27. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage </i></b></span><b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><span style="color: #274e13;">had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So what are the consequences of the decision for Religous Freedom in the US since, as the dissenters have pointed out, the consequences are far greater than they would be if Same-Sex Marriage had become law through legislative chage rather than by becoming a, hitherto unseen, Constitutional "right". Legislation can be fine tuned and amended in a way that an unwritten "right" cannot be. The judgment creating the "right" to same-sex marriage sets up a conflict of "rights" namely the explicit protection of religious rights set out in the 1st Amendment as against the, fairly unspecified, "right" to same-sex marriage which was "discovered" by the 5 Judges who gave the Obergefell decision. A conflict of rights is a recipe for years of expensive and acrimonious litigation because how can the Courts or legislatures protect the Constitutional rights of a Religious Organisation that actively disagrees with another Constitutional Right?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In<span style="color: blue;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Bob Jones University v. United States</span></a> case <span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/461/574.html" target="_blank">461 U.S. 574 (1983)</a> </span>the US Supreme Court decided that the Ist Amendment did not prevent the US Government removing the religious tax exemptions given to the religious Bob Jones University because the University prohibited Inter-racial dating. It would be therefore be a relatively easy and lawful step for tax exemptions to be similarly removed from religions that did not endorse same-sex relationships; as Chief Justice Roberts in P27 of his dissent pointed out that this possibility has already been considered and accepted by the US Government.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A more sinister, but equally possible, secenario would be the passing of legislation seizing the property of Religious Organisations which disagree with same-sex marriage. This could be legally justified on the basis that the teachings and practices of such religions opposed a "right" enshrined within the US Constitution. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the 19th Century when the Mormon Church practiced Polygamy the US Congress passed a series of<span style="color: blue;"> <a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/same-sex-marriage-defining-marriage.html" target="_blank"><b>increasingly draconian anti Mormon acts</b></a></span> culminating in </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;">the </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act" style="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act</span></a><span style="color: blue;"> which </span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;">dissolved the Mormon<span style="color: blue;"></span>Church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties. The legality and constitutionality of this act was endorsed by the US Supreme Court in<span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;"> <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=136&invol=1" style="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States 136 U.S. 1 (1890)</span></a>. </span>on the basis that the beliefs and practices of the Mormon Church were incompatible with US Law</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;">Could the same thing happen to Religious Organisations which disagree with same-sex marriage ? The legal precedents are there and certainly on the part of same-sex marriage advocates the will is there to attack and if possible destroy religion, in particular Christianity. Religions in the US are therefore facing a dangerous future where their freedom is far from guaranteed.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;"> </span></span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-30839288751075719982015-06-27T01:54:00.000+01:002015-06-27T14:36:15.785+01:00US Supreme Court - Same Sex Marriage Judgment<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;">In the case of </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;"><b><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Obergefell v. Hodges</span></a></b></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;"> t</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;">he US Supreme Court has decided that the <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">14th Amendment</span></a></b> to the US Constitution obliges all 50 States to recognise and licence Same-Sex Marriages. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;">The decision was by a majority of 5 - 4 so a very close split for such a fundamental decision with implications that go far beyond the issue of Same-Sex marriage itself. The majority decision was given by <b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Justice Kennedy</span></a></b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><span style="color: blue;">,</span> supported by Ginsberg J, Breyer J, Sotomayor J, and Kagan J. There was a dissenting Judgment given by Chief Justice Roberts, supported by Scalia J and Thomas J, a dissent by Justice Scalia J supported by Thomas J, another by Thomas J supported by Scalia J and last, but very definately not least a dissent by Alito J supported by Scalia J and Thomas J.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">There are specific references in all these judgments regarding its implications for Religious Freedom which I will deal with in a separate Blog but f</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">rom my point of view the dissenting judgments are more intellectually and legally coherent than the warm words, feel good, fatuousness of the majority Judgment so I will concentrate on them. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">The dissenting judgment by </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas" target="_blank">Thomas J</a></b> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">is particularly interesting in that he attacks what is in effect the new notion of "rights" within western society namely a demand that the Government and State "do something" rather than the historical view that "liberty" involves freedom "from" the state "doing something" and he points out that the decision of the Court is actually subversive and undermining of "Liberty" and "freedom" which are (or should be) the cornerstones of the US Constitution. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span></span>
<b><i><span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">P7: "In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement. .....P8 “[T]he common idea of liberty is merely negative, and is only the absence of restraint.” ....... "Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace" ........P10 "Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers [of the US Constitution] would have recognized."</span></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">The Dissent by <b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Scalia J</span></a></b> is astonishing in the vehemence of his language excoriating 5 of his colleagues. Like all of the dissenters he makes it clear that his objection is not to Same-Sex Marriage per se, his objection is to Same-Sex marriage being imposed on the entire United States by means of Judicial Decree</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span></span>
<b><i><span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">P1"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.Those civil consequences—and the public approval that </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and </span></span></i></b><b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><i>the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court"....... </i></b><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">He contrasts the difference between a new idea, such as same-sex marriage coming into force as a result of legislative debate rather than through Judicial diktat</span></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i>P2" Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work." .....P4"But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries </i></b></span></span><b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><i>and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect".........P6"</i></b><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i>The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since."</i></b></span></span><br />
<b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><i><br /></i></b>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">Alito J</span></b> </a>makes a similar point regarding the fact that the Court is imposing on America a judgment which in a Democracy should be made by the elected representatives of the people. </span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i>P6" The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials.”</i></b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">And he points out the long term implications of the way inwhich this decision has been arrived at and the future role of the Supreme Court</span></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i>P7"Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims."</i></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">The Dissent by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">Chief Justice Roberts</span></b></a>, is more restrained, as one might expect but for that reason is even more damning</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i>P2 "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be"....."Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.</i></b></span></span><b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><i>" ......</i></b><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i>P3 "Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is </i></b></span></span><b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><i>instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law." </i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">Interestingly Chief Justice Roberts goes on to compare this decision by the Supreme Court to the infamous <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">"Dred Scott"</span></b></a> case where the decision of the then, pro-slavery, Supreme Court to extend the rights of slave owners throughout the entire United States including the Free States was a major factor leading to the subsequent American Civil War.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">P11 "The need for restraint in administering the strong medicine of substantive due process is a lesson this Court has learned the hard way. The Court first applied substantive due process to strike down a statute in </span><span style="color: blue;"><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/" target="_blank">Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857)</a></span><span style="color: #274e13;">. There the Court invalidated the Missouri Compromise on the ground that legislation restricting the institution of slavery violated the implied rights of slaveholders. The Court relied on its own conception </span></i></b></span></span><b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><i>of liberty and property in doing so. ....... Dred Scott’s holding was overruled on the battlefields of</i></b><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i>the Civil War and by constitutional amendment after Appomattox,"</i></b></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">The Chief Justice also dealt with the probability that the logic of the decision by the Supreme Court would lead to legal cases demanding Polygamy, Polyandry and Plural Marriage In terms of American legal history this was not a merely theoretical suggestion. The legal definition of Marriage as being between 2 persons was laid down i</span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;">n the United States by the</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799995422363px; text-decoration: none;"><b><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 28.4799995422363px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">1878 case of Reynolds v USA 98 U.S. 145 </span></a></b></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799995422363px;">wchich involved the legality of Mormon Polygamy. (See my <a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/same-sex-marriage-defining-marriage.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;"><b>Blog for 1 August 2013 on Mormon Polygamy</b></span></a> and the Law)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">P20 "One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people.</span> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Buhman" target="_blank">Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947 </a></i></b></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Buhman" target="_blank"><b><i>F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013)</i></b></a>, <b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">appeal pending, No. 14-4117 (CA10). Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one."</span></i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></i></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"> And he, like the other dissenters gives a warning regarding the long term implications of the Courts decision</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i>"P22 "The majority’s understanding of due process lays out a tantalizing vision of the future for Members of this Court: If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of law. The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now"</i></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">Or as Scalia puts it more pointedly</span></span><br />
<b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><i>P5"</i></b><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;"><b><i>A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy." </i></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 28.4799976348877px;">to which I, as a British rather than an American citizen, can only say "hear hear"</span></span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-62469470200852532842015-06-24T19:29:00.001+01:002015-06-24T19:29:30.637+01:00Allah for Muslims Only ? - 3<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Following my two earlier Blogs of <a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/allah-for-muslims-only-2.html" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">24 January 2015</span></b></a> and<a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/allah-for-muslims-only.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;"> <b>23 June 2014</b></span></a> there has been a further case in Malaysia involving the question of whether Christians, and other non Muslims, are entitled to use the word "Allah" as the word signifying "God"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Malaysian Court of Appeal has issued a judgment in an ongoing case involving CD's seized by Malaysian Customs Officers from the luggage of a Malaysian Christian, Ms Jill Ireland Lawrence Bill. The CD's included ‘Cara Hidup Dalam Kerajaan Allah’ (How to live in God’s Kingdom), ‘Hidup Benar Dalam Kerajaan Allah’ (Right living in God’s Kingdom) and ‘Ibadah Yang Benar Dalam Kerajaan Allah’ (True faith in God’s Kingdom) and therefore all used the word "Allah" to refer to "God" hence their seizure. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Court of Appeal itself is based on a fairly arcane point of law namely that the Customs Officer involved did not have the necessary legal authority to seize and keep these CD's which were </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">seized in 2008. The decision therefore does seem to keep open the possibility that Government Officials in Malaysia, with the appropriate authority can still seize Christian CD's, Magazines, Bibles etc which refer to "God" as "Allah" </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Malaysian Courts system has therefore not been in any hurry to decide the issues in this case indeed the fundamantal issue of principle is still not decided if indeed it ever will be. The earlier decision in the </span><a href="http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/sites/default/files/document3/Komunikasi%20Korporat%20Hub%20Antbgsa/MAJORITY%20JUDGMENT_CJ,PCA,CJM,%20SURIYADI%20HALIM%20OMAR%20FCJ.pdf" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">"Catholic Herald"</span></b></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> case does show that the Malaysian Courts accept that the Government of Malaysia can restrict the use of the word "Allah" and that decision is likely to be used against Ms Ireland if she continues with her claim</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">So far I have not been able to find a transcript of the Judgment so this Blog is based on reports of the case at <a href="http://www.lapidomedia.com/muslims-monopoly-word-allah" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">Lapido Media</span></b></a> (an invaluable source of worldwide religious news), <a href="http://mltic.my/general/news/appeals-court-orders-return-of-cd-with-allah-word-to-sarawakian-MY12915.html" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">Malaysia University Legal News</span></b></a>, and <a href="http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/06/24/Customs-officer-had-no-authority-Order-to-seize-CDs-from-Sarawakian-clerk-was-bad-in-law-declares-co/" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">The Malaysia Star</span></b></a></span><br />
<br />Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-89917969465685885892015-05-19T15:28:00.002+01:002015-05-20T17:08:02.209+01:00Ashers Bakery and the "Gay Cake"<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VlPkaUUhGBk/VVtBAV7OLnI/AAAAAAAAAZU/W_IeX41ZO1Q/s1600/bake-the-cake-beating.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VlPkaUUhGBk/VVtBAV7OLnI/AAAAAAAAAZU/W_IeX41ZO1Q/s640/bake-the-cake-beating.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Judgment has been delivered in the Northern Ireland case of <a href="http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2015/[2015]%20NICty%202/j_j_2015NICty2Final.htm" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">Lee v Ashers Baking Company </span></b></a><span style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2015/[2015]%20NICty%202/j_j_2015NICty2Final.htm" style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">[2015] NICty 2</span></a><b style="color: blue;"> </b>(Court summary <a href="http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/SummaryJudgments/Documents/Court%20Delivers%20Judgment%20in%20Ashers%20Bakery%20Case/j_j_Summary%20of%20judgment%20-%20Ashers%20Bakery.htm" style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">HERE</a>). The case considered whether it was illegal for Ashers to refuse to bake a cake which carried a logo saying </span><i>"support gay marriage" </i>along with a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street, and the logo of the </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">organisation</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> <a href="http://www.queerspace.org.uk/" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">'Queerspace'</span></b></a>. More background facts available <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233" style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">HERE</a><b style="color: blue;"> </b>and a picture below of what Mr Lee wanted putting on the cake</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_hfGNRcMxQc/VVti1bn0i8I/AAAAAAAAAZk/0LA-XHu62S4/s1600/2702874E00000578-0-image-m-38_1427382492278.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_hfGNRcMxQc/VVti1bn0i8I/AAAAAAAAAZk/0LA-XHu62S4/s320/2702874E00000578-0-image-m-38_1427382492278.jpg" width="223" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Unlike many similar cases which involved Bakeries refusing to make a cake for a Same-Sex Marriage reception this case involved a Bakery being asked to bake a cake which explicitly endorsed the campaign to legalise Same-Sex Marriage in Northern Ireland. The Company was run by a family who are devout Christians and who believe that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The case revolved around 2 separate legal issues namely whether the refusal to make the cake constituted Discrimination on the grounds of Sexual Orientation contrary to the </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: blue;"><b> <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2006/439/contents/made" target="_blank">Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006</a></b> </span>and whether it constituted unlawful discrimination on the grounds of Political Opinion contrary to the<b><span style="color: blue;"> <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1998/3162/part/I/made" target="_blank">Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.</a></span></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Northern Ireland is unique in the UK for in making discrimination on the grounds of political opinion explicitly unlawful and this arises from the long history of sectarian division in Northern Ireland where religion, nationality and political opinion were so often synonymous with British/Unionist/Protestant identity facing Irish/Republican/Catholic identity.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Surprisingly in this case the Judge held that the refusal of Ashers to bake the cake constituted direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation simply on the basis that the buyer, a Mr Lee, happened to be Gay even though many supporters of Gay Marriage are heterosexual and similarly many Gay people are opposed to Gay Marriage. As is usual in these cases the Judge paid lip service to the Ashers rights to Religious Freedom under <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Article 9</span></a></b> and then stated that the law overode those rights</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Somewhat less surprisingly the Judge also decided that the refusal constituted discrimination on the grounds of political opinion. Damages were assessed as a nominal figure of £500.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The case will undoubtedly be appealed but what does emerge from it is the complete intolerance of the "Equality" industry and the way in which Equality Law is being used to destroy individual freedom including the freedom of a Bakery company to decide what products it wants to make. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">We in Britain have just been celebrating the 70th anniversary of our victory in WW2 but frankly what are we celebrating ?, 'Freedom', but not if you run a Bakery it would seem. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-23573650481598587402015-04-28T20:08:00.001+01:002015-04-29T19:11:55.491+01:00US Supreme Court - Same Sex Marriage arguments<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In the case of </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges" target="_blank"><b>Obergefell v. Hodges</b></a></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> t</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">he US Supreme Court has been hearing final arguments regarding whether it should recognise Same-Sex Marriage as a "Right" under the US Constitution</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Court is considering 2 questions</span><br />
<i><b><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">(1) “Does the 14th amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”</span></b></i><br />
<i><b><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">(2) “Does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The relevant part of the <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" target="_blank">14th Amendment</a></b> says</span><br />
<i><b><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."</span></b></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></i>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In addition to the 14th Amendment implicit in question(2) is <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause" target="_blank">Article IV, Section 1</a></b>: of the US Constitution which says</span><br />
<i><b><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/" target="_blank">US Supreme Court website </a> </span></b>provides transcripts of the legal argument and also audio recordings so you can read the legal argument on <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf" target="_blank">Question 1 here</a></span></b> and <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q2_2dp3.pdf" target="_blank">Question 2 here</a></span></b>: Or you can listen to an audio recording of the legal argument on <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1" target="_blank">Question 1here</a></span></b>: and <b><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q2" target="_blank">Question 2 here</a>.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/" target="_blank">SCOTUSblog</a></span></b> provides a link to the (numerous) briefs and Amicus Curiae submissions made in the case <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/" style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">HERE:</a><b style="color: blue;"> </b>as does the website of the<a href="http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/14-556-14-562-14-571-14-574.html?cq_ck=1425077268167" style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank"> American Bar Association</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">A fundamental argument frequently made by those who want the US Supreme Court to make Same-Sex marriage a Constitutional Right is the suggestion that banning Same-Sex marriage is similar to the earlier bans on Interacial Marriage which existed in many of the Southern States until these were overturned in the case of <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia" target="_blank">Loving v Virginia</a></span></b> in <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1" target="_blank">388 U.S. 1 (1967)</a></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Interestingly at the outset of the legal argument between the parties US Chief Justice Roberts put his finger at the difference between this case and the Loving case when he said</span><br />
<i><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>"Well, you say join in the institution [ie Marriage]. The argument on the other side is that they're seeking to redefine the institution. Every definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife. Obviously, if you succeed, that core definition will no longer be operable.......... you're not seeking to join the institution, you're seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the oppositesex relationship and you want to introduce into it a samesex relationship"</b></span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Justice Kennedy similarly pointed the inherent problem of a decision of this significance being imposed on the United States by Judicial Fiat.</span><br />
<i><b><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">"This definition has been with us for millennia. And it it's very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we we know better."</span></b></i><br />
<i><b><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></i>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">What the Supreme Court will decide is difficult to predict but my personal view is that it will answer Question (1): No, and Question (2): Yes, on the basis both of the 14th Amendment and the principle of reciprocity in Article 1V. This answer will also avoid the danger of the Supreme Court being seen to impose its own subjective views and thereby overuling or sidelining the democratic process.</span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-88809398776396037772015-04-01T11:21:00.000+01:002015-04-01T11:21:05.807+01:00Religious Freedom and Education in Quebec - Loyola High School case<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Supreme Court of Canada has supported the Religious Freedom rights of a Catholic School in the Province of Quebec in a case which revolved around s2 of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms" style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Canadian Charter of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms </a><b style="color: blue;"> </b>which is the section that protects <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Canada" target="_blank">Religious Freedom in Canada</a></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The case of <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc12/2015scc12.html" target="_blank">Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 (CanLII) </a></span></b>was the culmination of a 5 year legal battle over the teaching of a compulsory curriculum on Ethics and Religious Culture as opposed to teaching the subject in conformity with the Catholic beliefs which were part of the inherent identity of the School</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Since September 2008, as part of the mandatory core curriculum in schools across Quebec, the Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports had required all schools in Quebec to teach a Program on Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC), which teaches about the beliefs and ethics of different world religions from a neutral and objective perspective.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> The stated objectives of the ERC Program are the “recognition of others” and the “pursuit of the common good” seeking to inculcate in students "openness to human rights, diversity and respect for others" <i>(or to put it another way the usual meaningless PC claptrap which has inflitrated speech and political discourse in the English [and French] speaking world).</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To fulfil these objectives, the ERC Program has three components: world religions and religious culture, ethics, and dialogue. The three components are intended to support and reinforce one another. The orientation of the Program is strictly secular and cultural and requires teachers to be objective and impartial. Teachers are not to advance the truth of a particular belief system or attempt to influence their students’ beliefs, but to foster awareness of diverse values, beliefs and cultures. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The course was compulsory in Provincial state schools but under s. 22 of the Regulation the Minister can grant </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">private independent schools </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">an exemption from the specific requirements of the ERC Program if the School provides an alternative program which is deemed to be “equivalent”. Loyola wrote to the Minister to request an exemption from the Program, proposing an alternative course to be taught from the perspective of Catholic beliefs and ethics. The Minister denied the request based on the fact that Loyola’s whole proposed alternative program was to be taught from a Catholic perspective. It was not, as a result, deemed to be “equivalent” to the ERC Program.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Loyola brought an application for judicial review of the Minister’s decision. <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2010/2010qccs2631/2010qccs2631.html" target="_blank">Loyola High School c. Courchesne, 2010 QCCS 2631 (CanLII) </a> </span></b>where the Superior Court decided that the Minister’s refusal of an exemption infringed Loyola’s right to religious freedom under the Charter, quashed the Minister’s decision, and ordered an exemption. On appeal </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qcca/doc/2012/2012qcca2139/2012qcca2139.html" target="_blank">Québec (Procureur général) c. Loyola High School, 2012 QCCA 2139 (CanLII) </a></span></b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> the Quebec Court of Appeal overuled the Superior Court and concluded that the Minister’s decision was reasonable and did not result in any breach of religious freedom. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At the Supreme Court hearing Loyola modified its request to teach the whole ERC program from a Catholic perspective, and was prepared to teach about the doctrines and practices of other world religions neutrally but it still wanted to teach about the ethics of other religions from a Catholic perspective. The Minister’s position however remained the same namely that no part of the ERC program could be taught from a Catholic perspective.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Supreme Court decided that the Minister’s decision requiring that all aspects of Loyola’s proposed program be taught from a neutral perspective, including the teaching of Catholicism, limited freedom of religion more than was necessary and as a result, it did not reflect a proportionate balancing and should be set aside. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Minister for reconsideration.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The court held para 79 </span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>"it is the Minister’s decision as a whole that must reflect a proportionate and therefore reasonable balancing of the Charter protections and statutory objectives in issue. It does not, in my respectful view, because it rests on the assumption that a confessional program cannot achieve the objectives of the ERC Program."</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A particularly important point of principle relating to the rights of Religious Organisations, including religious schools, was dealt with in paras 90 -91</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>[90] The Attorney General of Quebec contends that Loyola enjoys no such constitutional protection because it is not a natural person, but merely a legal person: religious freedom protects sincerely held beliefs, and a corporation is capable of neither sincerity nor belief. This raises the question of whether religious organizations are protected by the guarantee of freedom of religion.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<b><i><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></i></b><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>[91] In our view, Loyola may rely on the guarantee of freedom of religion found in s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter. The communal character of religion means that protecting the religious freedom of individuals requires protecting the religious freedom of religious organizations, including religious educational bodies such as Loyola. Canadian and international jurisprudence supports this conclusion.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court accepted therefore that </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Loyola’s teachers were permitted to describe and explain Catholic doctrine and ethical beliefs from the Catholic perspective. They agreed with the principle of the ERC course that Loyola’s teachers must describe and explain the ethical beliefs and doctrines of other religions in an objective and respectful way but accepted that where the context of the classroom discussion requires it, they may identify what Catholic beliefs are, why Catholics follow those beliefs, and the ways in which other ethical or doctrinal propositions do not accord with those beliefs.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">An interesting point was raised in para 150 regarding the fact that a completely secular approach was not necessarily a neutral approach</span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>150 By using as her starting point the premise that only a secular approach to teaching the ERC Program can suffice as equivalent, the protection contemplated by the s. 22 exemption provision was rendered illusory.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This mirrored to some extent similar points made by the European ourt of Human Rights in the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/italian-crucifix-case-grand-chamber.html" target="_blank">Lautsi (Italian Crucifix) case in 2011</a></span></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>A preference for secularism over alternative world views—whether religious, philosophical or otherwise—is not a neutral option.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The case may well be too specific to Quebec legislation for it to have a wider influence but since s2 of the Canadian Charter is similar to <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights" target="_blank">Article 9 </a></span></b>of the European Convention on Human Rights this case could be of value to UK Religious based Schools should they feel that parts of the National Curriculum are contrary to their religious nature and identity. It may be particularly helpful as providing some guidance and reassurance for religious schools considering the difficult question of how they are to teach about same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships</span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-87970964620054152502015-03-17T17:42:00.002+00:002015-03-17T17:50:07.705+00:00Socialism is a "Belief"<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Employment Appeals Tribunal has made an "interesting" decision in <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2015/0073_14_1303.html" target="_blank">General Municipal and Boilermakers Union v Henderson [2015] UKEAT 0073_14_1303</a></span></b> where it has agreed that a strong commitment to "</span><span style="line-height: 32px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">left-wing democratic socialist beliefs" would constitute a "philosophical belief" for the purpose of <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10" target="_blank">s10 Equality Act 2010</a> </span></b> which say</span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><i><b>(1) Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.</b></i></span></span></div>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><b><span style="line-height: 32px; text-align: justify;"></span></b></i></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><i><b>(2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.</b></i></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;">The judgement itself is lengthy to the point of tedium and involves a dispute between Mr Henderson and his employer who happened to be the GMB Union. It seems from the judgement that it was accepted by both sides that Mr Henderson had strongly held “left-wing democratic socialist beliefs” and that it was also accepted that these constituted protected beliefs for the purpose of s10. The rest of the judgement involves the EAT Judge deciding that Mr Henderson was not actually discriminated against because of those beliefs.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;">However was the EAT Judge right to agree that left wing Socialism was a protected belief under s10 ? In my view she was emphatically and hopelessly wrong. I covered the question in Chapter 3 of my book <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/041542030X/sr=1-2/qid=1155337200/ref=sr_1_2/202-7224455-3174269?tag2=harassmlaw-21" target="_blank">"Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law"</a></span></b> where I quoted the Parliamentary debate when the Equality Bill was going through Parliament. Chapter 3 read as follows</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><b><i>"One thing that was made clear in both the Lords and the Commons was that Parliament did not want to see Political Beliefs or the membership of a political party being treated by the courts as a “belief” for the purposes of section 44. Questions were raised on this point in both houses because the definition of “religion or belief” in s44 differed from the definition that was already in place in s2(1) of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 namely</i></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><b><i>"religion or belief" means any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief</i></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><b><i>Concerns were raised that removing the word "similar" could mean that it would become illegal to discriminate against people because of their political beliefs. Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland said (Hansard 13 July 2005 Col 1109)</i></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><b><i>"The intention behind the wording in Part 2 is identical to that in the employment regulations. However, in drafting Part 2, it was felt that the word "similar" added nothing and was, therefore, redundant. This is because the term "philosophical belief" will take its meaning from the context in which it appears; that is, as part of the legislation relating to discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. Given that context, philosophical beliefs must therefore always be of a similar nature to religious beliefs. It will be for the courts to decide what constitutes a belief for the purposes of Part 2 of the Bill, but case law suggests that any philosophical belief must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and must not be incompatible with human dignity. Therefore an example of a belief that might meet this description is humanism, and examples of something that might not—I hope I do not give any offence to anyone present in the Chamber—would be support of a political party or a belief in the supreme nature of the Jedi Knights."</i></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><b><i>Whilst Home Office Minister Paul Goggins MP said (Hansard 6 December 2005 Col 146)</i></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><b><i>"philosophical belief is not limitless; for example, it would not be possible to claim that belief in the supremacy of a certain football team qualified as a religion or philosophical belief. Nor, indeed, could that claim be made about belief in the principles of a political party, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. We know that because of the case in April this year of Baggs v. Fudge, in which a member of the British National party sought to challenge the refusal of an organisation to interview him for a job under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, which incorporate wording about “philosophical belief” similar to that in the Bill. That individual’s argument, that his support for the BNP constituted a philosophical belief, was thoroughly rejected by the tribunal, so there is no case to suggest that any such political belief would qualify as a religion or belief under the Bill. We are not making up the provisions on the spur of the moment; as I said, there is a precedent for them in the 2003 regulations.</i></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><b><i><u>Mr. Grieve:</u> I can understand the rationale in Baggs v. Fudge, which concerned an adherence to a political party, as I understand it. That seems to me to be capable of being distinguished from an adherence to a particular philosophical belief. There may be no such difference, but the Minister may understand why I remain slightly troubled by this point. It is one thing to say, “We refused to interview him because he was a member of the BNP” and another to say, “We refused to interview him because we knew that he had a belief in white supremacy”. Maybe there is no distinction between those two statements, but I see a capacity for one. I wonder whether we are in danger of opening a door to people to make such arguments.</i></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><b><i><u>Paul Goggins: </u>Often those two things, a particular belief and association with an organisation, are inextricably linked. In the end it will always be for the court, the employment tribunal or other judicial setting to determine whether the provisions of a particular employment law are relevant to a particular case. Our job here is to set out in legislation the overall provisions, and that we do, in a way that does not give limitless extent to the concept of philosophical belief, but ensures that it is consistent with the hallmarks of religious belief, such as cogency, which I quoted earlier"</i></b></span></span></div>
<div align="left" class="western" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="western" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So is a belief in Political Islamism or indeed Fascism, now protected by the Equality Act ? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><br /></span></span></div>
Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-90596773349928435312015-03-12T19:06:00.000+00:002015-03-12T19:10:29.151+00:00Equality and Human Rights Commission Report <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/">Equality and Human Rights Commission </a></span></b>has issued a <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/RoB%20Call%20for%20Evidence%20Report.pdf">Report on Religion or belief in the workplace and service delivery </a></span></b>which is an analysis of a consultation regarding the operation of the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents">Equality Act 2010</a></span></b> in relation to protecting (or not protecting) expressions of Religion and Belief especially in the workplace</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I was asked to speak on the subject to <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radiomerseyside">BBC Radio Merseyside</a></span></b> this morning and you can hear my contribution <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02kq876" style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;">HERE</a><b style="color: blue;"> </b><i>(I am at 01:06:00 the contribution from the EHRC is at 00:06:00 )</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">My main point which I have made before is that the real problem is the fact that people increasingly look for reasons to be 'offended' rather than adopting a 'live and let live' attitude to others. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The EHRC consultation elicited responses from 2,500 people with t</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">he largest number of responses coming from Christians from a number of denominations. The <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/our-work/key-projects/your-experiences-religion-or-belief">EHRC website</a></span></b> says that</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>"Positive experiences included respondents describing workplaces with an inclusive environment in which employees and employers were able to discuss openly the impact of religion or belief on employees or customers. Some respondents of different religions also reported they were easily able to take time off to celebrate religious holidays.</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="color: #274e13;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>Some employees or service users stated that they had experienced no or few negative issues in their workplace or in receiving a service which they attributed to the view of employers or service providers that religion or belief was a private matter and should not be discussed in the workplace or the service.</i></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></span>
<span style="color: #274e13;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>Some employees and students stated that they had encountered hostile and unwelcoming environments in relation to the holding, or not holding, of a religion or belief. The issues raised concerned the recruitment process, working conditions, including the wearing of religious clothing or symbols, promotion and progression, and time off work for religious holidays and holy days. Some reported that particular beliefs were mocked or dismissed in the workplace or classroom, or criticised unwelcome 'preaching' or proselytising, or the expression of hurtful or derogatory remarks aimed at particular groups.</i></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></span>
<span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>Employees and employers reported that requests relating to religion or belief issues were not always fairly dealt with in the workplace and some called for better guidance on how to achieve this.</i></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></span>
<i style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">Many participants were concerned about the right balance between the freedom to express religious views and the right of others to be free from discrimination or harassment. Specific issues raised included conscientious objection in relation to marriage of same sex couples and how to protect employees from harassment and discrimination by staff, customers or service users with a religion. There was a marked divergence of opinion about when it was desirable and appropriate to discuss religious beliefs with service users during the delivery of a service.</i><br />
<span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></span>
<span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>A group of service providers with a religious ethos expressed concerns about reductions in funding opportunities from the public and private sectors.</i></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></span>
<i style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">Some participants viewed the current equality and human rights legal framework relating to religion or belief favourably, arguing that it provided a single robust framework to deal with discrimination and equality. Others were broadly favourable, but felt a pluralistic approach had not yet gone far enough. A third group viewed the law negatively, with some Christian employers, service users and providers considering that Christianity had lost status as a result of the legal framework. "</i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">My own view is that I do not expect to see anything positive coming from the EHRC which so far as I am concerned is simply a waste of the taxpayers money.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> It is a paradox of EHRC like so many other organisations in modern Britain that is considers itself a beacon of liberal tolerance but that liberal tolerance is only extended to similarly minded tolerant liberals. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-37891542404660912002015-01-24T13:23:00.000+00:002015-01-29T14:33:01.749+00:00Allah for Muslims Only ? - 2<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/allah-for-muslims-only.html">On 23 June last year I blogged </a></span></b>about a case in Malaysia where the Government had prevented the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/newscategory/news/Malaysian-federal-court-dismisses-Church-review-petition-over-Allah-ban/22316/1/">Catholic Herald of Malaysia</a></span></b> from using the word "Allah" in its Malay publication. In its Judgment <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/sites/default/files/document3/Komunikasi%20Korporat%20Hub%20Antbgsa/MAJORITY%20JUDGMENT_CJ,PCA,CJM,%20SURIYADI%20HALIM%20OMAR%20FCJ.pdf">Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Negeri & Ors </a></span></b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/sites/default/files/document3/Komunikasi%20Korporat%20Hub%20Antbgsa/MAJORITY%20JUDGMENT_CJ,PCA,CJM,%20SURIYADI%20HALIM%20OMAR%20FCJ.pdf">Civil Application No.: 08-690-11/2013</a></span></b> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">the </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Malaysia" style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;">Federal Court of Malaysia</a><b style="color: blue;">, </b>which is the highest Court in the Country,<b style="color: blue;"> </b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">noted [para 30]</span><br />
<b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><i>" the reasons given by the Minister in his Affidavit In Reply, it is clear that he was concerned with national security and public order."</i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">the Federal Court in the same paragraph endorsed the view of the Court of Appeal</span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"the usage of the word ‘Allah' particularly in the Malay version of the Herald, is without doubt, do have the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community."</i></b></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In its Judgement the Federal Court basically took a very narrow and technical view of its powers of Judicial Review and regarded the decision as one that fell within the area of Executive discretion. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Catholic Church recently applied to the Federal Court to reconsider its Judgment on the basis that it had not properly taken account of the provisions of the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Malaysia">Constitution of Malaysia </a></span></b> relating to religious freedom. Not surprisingly perhaps the Federal Court having looked at its own decision decided it had been right all along and so the possibility of any further review of the Federal Court decision has ended see News Links <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/21/malaysia-religion-idUSL4N0V036320150121">HERE</a></span></b>, <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/01/catholic-church-150121100311536.html">HERE</a></span></b>, <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/newscategory/news/Malaysian-federal-court-dismisses-Church-review-petition-over-Allah-ban/22316/1/">HERE</a></span></b>, There appears to be no further legal route for the Catholic Church to appeal this ban on it using the word "Allah" for God in Malay services and publications and there are already <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/after-allah-case-muslim-group-demands-herald-stop-using-malay">attempts to try to stop the Catholic Herald publishing anything in Malay.</a></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">As an outsider this decision by the Malaysian Government to try to control the use of the word "Allah" seems bizarre. Arab Christians use "Allah" and I was recently in Malta, an extremely Catholic country, where in services God is routinely called "Alla". In a strange way to try to keep Allah as a word only to be used by Muslims actually diminishes "Allah" who ceases to be "the God", the one true creator of the Universe and instead becomes merely the God of Muslims on a par with Zeus or Odin. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I wonder however whether this idea of restricting the use of the word "Allah" will spread within the Muslim World. A particular danger may be that the Ahmadiyya Muslims will be targeted and prevented from using the word "Allah" in their services. They are not regarded as "true" Muslims by most Sunni and Shia groups and are already prevented from describing themselves as Muslims in many countries</span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-35052472272598240912015-01-19T16:57:00.000+00:002015-01-19T16:57:42.457+00:00Caste Discrimination in the Employment Tribunal <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal has accepted that Caste Discrimination, may (and I emphasise "may") constitute a subset of Racial Discrimination for the purposes of a Discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2014/0190_14_1912.html">Chandhok v Tirkey [2014] UKEAT 0190_14_1912</a></span></b> a claim was brought by a former domestic worker against her former employers alleging that they had treated her in a demeaning and prejudiced manner. Both the worker and her employers were of Indian origin though she alleged that the reason for this treatment was her perceived lower caste status. The defendants applied to strike out that element of the claim since caste is not one of the "protected characteristics" listed in the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/1">Equality Act</a> </span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The ET and the EAT refused this application in large part because it was possible that, on the facts of the case, the caste of the claimant arose from her descent in which case it could fall under the definition of race. If caste was for some other reason, ie religious, then it would not constitute race discrimination. The matter had to be decided on its own facts and therefore the "caste" element of the race discrimination claim could not be dismissed without a hearing where it could be determined whether on the facts it could fall within the protected characteristic of race/ethic origin.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The decision certainly does not throw open the doors to straightforward claims of caste discrimination but it does make such claims easier to bring which is something that caste activists have been seeking for some time. Whilst caste as a formal concept is inextricably linked to the Indian sub continent it is not unique to Hinduism. There is a great deal of evidence that both Muslims and Sikhs continue to have a strong conciousness of caste even though the concept is condemned by their own religions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Interestingly on 31st December 2014 Parliament issued </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06862.pdf">The Equality Act 2010: caste discrimination - Commons Library Standard Note </a></span></b>which is a useful source of information on the issue including mention of the Chandhok case. I can also heartily recommend <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2014/04/12/caste-discrimination-the-governments-progress/">Caste discrimination: the Government’s progress</a></span></b> which is a posting in April 2014 on the invaluable <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/">Law and Religion UK Blog</a></span></b></span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-34764191808197805842014-12-24T01:44:00.000+00:002014-12-29T14:37:27.527+00:00Goodbye 2014<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This Blog is now closing down until January 2015 and I thought I would finish with a bit of a look back on a rather depressing year.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The lowest point was undoubtedly the Supreme Court decision in </span><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> </span><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/call-midwife-i-want-abortion-3.html"><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="color: blue;">Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan [2014] UKSC 68</span></b><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> </span></a><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">which in</span><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">effect neutered the Conscientious Objection provision in the Abortion Act 1967 and in my view on very questionable legal grounds. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">The high point for me personally was the opportunity to represent Mr Thomas Monson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church) who was summonsed to answer a private prosecution issued by a disafected ex Mormon Bishop, Mr Tom Philips. The Summons was described in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10619538/Head-of-Mormon-church-Thomas-Monson-summoned-by-British-magistrates-court-over-Adam-and-Eve-teaching.html"><b>The Daily Telegraph as </b></a></span></span><span style="color: #0000ee; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><u><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10619538/Head-of-Mormon-church-Thomas-Monson-summoned-by-British-magistrates-court-over-Adam-and-Eve-teaching.html"><b>"one of the most unusual documents ever issued by a British Court"</b></a></u></span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> and I would certainly agree with that. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">Before I was instructed to act I had been contacted by a reporter from the Arizona Republic Newspaper asking for<span style="color: blue;"><b> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/mormon-president-ordered-to-appear-in-british-court/2014/02/05/6b327684-8e99-11e3-878e-d76656564a01_story.html">my response which ended up being syndicated across the US</a></b></span> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">Anyway I was involved with other lawyers in getting the case <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26666144"><b><span style="color: blue;">chucked out at the first hearing</span></b></a> on the basis that the issues related to religious doctrine <a href="http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/thomas-phillips-v-thomas-monson.pdf"><b><span style="color: blue;">and were therefore "Non Justiciable". </span></b></a></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">Prior to the hearing I spent some time following ex Mormon Blogs (almost as bad as ex Catholics, leave the Church but refuse to leave it alone) in order to try to understand the logic behind the case. What became apparent was that the case was based on a fundamental failure to understand the legal and philosophical nature of religious belief. The idea behind the case was that because certain beliefs of the Mormon Church are expressed by the Church as assertions of facts then they could be examined in Court however that ignores the reality that most religious beliefs are expressed as assertions of fact, "Christ was crucified and rose from the dead", "Mohammed was visited by the Angel Gabriel who said 'recite' (Arabic 'Quran') and the assertions of fact/belief by the Mormon Church are no different in that respect.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">Interestingly the question of whether and to what extent issues relating to religious belief are Non Justiciable was considered by the Supreme Court a few months later in </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/shergil-v-khaira-when-can-religious.html">Shergill v Khaira [2014] UKSC 33</a></span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/shergil-v-khaira-when-can-religious.html"> </a> which reaffirmed the principle of Non Justiability with just a little bit of tweaking.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">During the year I have been paying a bit more attention to my Blog statistics in particular where visitors come from. Most are from the UK with the US the next most common, I have visitors from France and Germany (Bienveue and Guten Tag) Vistors also come from Australia (G'day sport) and from Canada (Happy Christmas/Joyeux Noel, Hey !)</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">I also have visitors from Russia and Ukraine though for some reason nobody from Belarus so I wonder what I have done to upset the Belarussians. Anyway </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">Счастливого Рождества and щасливого Різдва to my Slavic readers.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">The mention of Ukraine and Russia of course inevitably brings up thoughts of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine and the increasing hostility between Russia and Ukraine. I actually own a map of Europe published in 1913 and it shows what we call Ukraine named as "Little Russia" with Belarus as "White Russia" and Russia proper as "Great Russia"which is why the Tsars were called "Tsar of all the Russias". The relationship between Ukraine and Russia is therefore an historically close one so making the conflict between them even sadder and no doubt more bitter because family disputes invariably are the bitterest.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">And besides Ukraine there is the ongoing Syrian Civil War and the growth of the self styled Islamic State where frankly I doubt if any outsider truly understands what is really going on or the motivations behind all the death and destruction that is happening.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">So as I said a depressing year all I can do is to wish you all well and to hope that 2015 will be a good year for you and a better year for the world.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">Until then Good Night and God Bless </span></span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-87079797358247120462014-12-24T00:47:00.002+00:002014-12-24T00:47:47.720+00:00Call The Midwife I want an Abortion ! - 4<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In an attempt to try to derive some good from the Supreme Court decision in </span><span style="color: blue;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2014/68.html" target="_blank">Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan [2014] UKSC 68</a></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">the comments of Lady Hale in paras 23 and 24 are worth noting </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>23: There was some discussion, at an earlier stage in these proceedings, of the relevance of the petitioners' rights under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights">article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.</a> This protects the "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion," including the freedom "to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance". It is our duty, under <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/3">section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998</a>, to read and give effect to legislation, whenever it was passed, in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, so far as it is possible to do so. However, the article 9 right is a qualified right, which may be subject to "such limitations as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others". Refusing for religious reasons to perform some of the duties of a job is likely (following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in <a href="http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/37.html">Eweida v United Kingdom ((2013) 57 EHRR 8</a>) to be held to be a manifestation of a religious belief. There would remain difficult questions of whether the restrictions placed by the employers upon the exercise of that right were a proportionate means of pursuing a legitimate aim. The answers would be context specific and would not necessarily point to either a wide or a narrow reading of <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/4">section 4 of the 1967 Act</a>.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>24: The better course, therefore, is for this court to decide what that section means according to the ordinary principles of statutory construction. That will then set a limit to what an employer may lawfully require of his employees. But a state employer has also to respect his employees' Convention rights. And the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10">Equality Act 2010</a> requires that any employer refrain from direct or unjustified indirect discrimination against his employees on the ground of their religion or belief. So, even if not protected by the conscience clause in section 4, the petitioners may still claim that, either under the Human Rights Act or under the Equality Act, their employers should have made reasonable adjustments to the requirements of the job in order to cater for their religious beliefs. This will, to some extent at least, depend upon issues of practicability which are much better suited to resolution in the employment tribunal proceedings (currently sisted pending the resolution of this case) than in judicial review proceedings such as these.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This does give Supreme Court approval to an argument that I have successfully used to defend pro-life medics being pressurised to assist with Abortion services even if they do not "participate" in the narrow sense in which that word has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. In a <a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/abortion-and-equality-act.html"><b><span style="color: blue;">Blog on 12 August 2011 "Abortion and the Equality Act"</span></b></a> I discussed my use of the Equality Act with the pro-life position being put forward either as a religious or a philosophical belief ( as I have frequently mentioned in the past pro-life views are not restricted to religious believers, it is quite possible to be an Atheist and pro-life )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In an ET1 (Employment Tribunal Claim Form) drafted by myself on behalf of a pro-life employee in the NHS I relied on Article 9 and s10 as follows</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"The claimant is a member of the Roman Catholic Religion. She has both a religious and a personal philosophical belief that human life begins at conception and that Abortion is the killing of an innocent human life and is harmful both to the unborn child and to the mother of that unborn child. This is a belief which is compatible with human dignity and worthy of respect in a civilised society and as such it is protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Human Rights and under section 10(1) and 10(2) of the Equality Act 2010."</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The cases I have been involved in have however all been resolved without litigation and therefore it is still unclear how far the Equality Act will be effective in protecting pro-life medics and Lady Hales remarks do seem to be an encouragement to litigation which will be expensive and uncertain for all concerned. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Personally I would have preferred the simpler and more realistic solution of the Supreme Court giving a broad reading to the Conscientious Objection clause in s4 of the Abortion Act 1967. However since that has not happened pro-life medics and lawyers such as myself will now have to look increasingly to the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act in order to protect conscience and avoid participation in Abortion</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-25807813497570808932014-12-17T20:50:00.002+00:002014-12-17T23:51:59.543+00:00Call the Midwife I want an Abortion ! - 3<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Supreme Court has issued its decision in the case of <span style="color: blue;"> <b><a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2014/68.html" target="_blank">Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan [2014] UKSC 68</a></b> </span>which was an Appeal from the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2013/2013CSIH36.html" target="_blank">[2013] ScotCS CSIH_36</a></span></b> itself an Appeal from the earlier Outer House decision <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2012/2012CSOH32.html" target="_blank">[2012] ScotCS CSOH_32</a></span></b>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
I have <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/call-midwife-i-want-abortion.html" target="_blank">Blogged about the cases in 2012</a></span></b> and <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/call-midwife-i-want-abortion-2.html">2013.</a></span></b> In brief Ms <span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">Doogan and Ms Wood are experienced senior Midwives who worked in a supervisory capacity in the Labour Ward of their Hospital. Due to changes in Hospital routines etc Abortions began to be performed in the Labour ward and this </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">change put the two midwives in a moral and legal dilemma that eventually led to the Supreme Court.</span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"></span><br style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;" /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">They objected to Abortion on Religious Grounds <i>(they are Roman Catholics and the Catholic position on Abortion is pretty unambiguous)</i> and sought to rely on the Conscientious Objection clause in s4(1) <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/contents" target="_blank">Abortion Act 1967</a></span></b> which says.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #006600; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">"no person shall be under any duty whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection"</span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">It is worth pointing out that the conscientious objection clause is not restricted to believers in religion, a <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.secularprolife.org/" target="_blank">Secular Pro-Life</a></span></b> person is entitled to rely on s4(1) just as much as a religious person. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"></span><br style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;" /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">The problem that the two Midwives had was that the Hospital did not accept that s4(1) covered their supervisory functions but insisted that it only applied to direct involvement in the physical act of Abortion </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">and the legal case at all Courts has revolved around the question of what <span style="font-style: italic;"><b><span style="color: #274e13;">"participate in any treatment" </span></b></span>actually meant. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">The Supreme Court found against the Midwives and the Judgment was, ironically, delivered by Lady Hale. I say "ironically" because on 13th June 2014 <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-140613.pdf">Lady Hale gave a speech to the Law Society of Ireland </a></span></b>where she said </span><br />
<b style="background-color: white; color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">"I am not sure that our <span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">law has yet found a reasonable accommodation of all these different strands [of religious freedom and conscientious objection]"</span></span></i></b></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">One thing is clear from the Doogan Judgment namely that the Supreme Court did not even try to find a "reasonable accomodation" and instead went out of its way to emasculate and limit the Conscience Clause in s4. The Court in para 37 of its judgment accepted that the word "participate" can have a narrow or a wider meaning and then in para 38 plumped for the narrow meaning</span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>37: The more difficult question is what is meant by "to participate in" the course of treatment in question. The employers accept that it could have a broad or a narrow meaning. On any view, it would not cover things done before the course of treatment began, such as making the booking before the first drug is administered. But a broad meaning might cover things done in connection with that treatment after it had begun, such as assigning staff to work with the patient, supervising and supporting such staff, and keeping a managerial eye on all the patients in the ward, including any undergoing a termination. A narrow meaning would restrict it to "actually taking part", that is actually performing the tasks involved in the course of treatment.</i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: #274e13;"><b><i>38: In my view, the narrow meaning is more likely to have been in the contemplation of Parliament when the Act was passed. The focus of section 4 is on the acts made lawful by section 1. It is unlikely that, in enacting the conscience clause, Parliament had in mind the host of ancillary, administrative and managerial tasks that might be associated with those acts. Parliament will not have had in mind the hospital managers who decide to offer an abortion service, the administrators who decide how best that service can be organised within the hospital (for example, by assigning some terminations to the Labour Ward, some to the Fetal Medicine Unit and some to the Gynaecology Ward), the caterers who provide the patients with food, and the cleaners who provide them with a safe and hygienic environment. Yet all may be said in some way to be facilitating the carrying out of the treatment involved. The </i></b></span><b style="color: #274e13;"><i>managerial and supervisory tasks carried out by the Labour Ward Co-ordinators </i></b><b style="color: #274e13;"><i>are closer to these roles than they are to the role of providing the treatment which brings about the termination of the pregnancy. "Participate" in my view means taking part in a "hands-on" capacity.</i></b></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">My first objection to this is that there is absolutely no factual or legal basis on for the Court to decide that the "narrow interpretation" is more likely to have been "in the contemplation of Parliament". There appears to have been no reference made to the Parliamentary Debates as is allowed by the case of <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992/3.html">Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593</a></span></b> and which would have revealed that the Abortion Act was only passed because of the conscience clause in s4 and assurances that there would be no compulsion regarding participation in Abortion </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">There seemed no recognition that the job of a Labour Ward Co-ordinator required a medical qualification and was carried out by these Midwives in their capacity as qualified Midwives so the comparison Lady Hale makes with cleaners etc is simply fatuous </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">More worryingly the Judgment deals with 2 issues relating to Abortion but which were not part of the issues before the Court</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In para 36 Lady Hale sa</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ys that the Conscience Clause provisions in s4 do not cover a Doctor who is asked to sign an authorisation form to legalise an Abortion </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"In Janaway <a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1988/17.html">[1989] AC 537, 572</a> Lord Keith pointed out that such an interpretation would not cover the doctors forming the opinions required by section 1 and signing the certificates to that effect" </i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This is actually a complete misrepresentation of Lord Keiths remarks in Janaway where after discussing whether s4 applied to Doctors Certificates he said (very correctly) </span></div>
<div>
<b><i><span style="color: #274e13; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I do not think it appropriate to express any opinion on the matter."</span></span></i></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I rather wish Lady Hale had accepted the same degree of proper Judicial restraint in commenting on matters which were not specifically part of the issues in the case especially having regard to the fact that Doctors Organisations were not represented at the Supreme Court case and had not been forewarned that legal decisions might be made relating to them so that they could make representations if they wished.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In para 40 she says</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"it is a feature of conscience clauses generally within the health care profession that the conscientious objector be under an obligation to refer the case to a professional who does not share that objection. This is a necessary corollary of the professional's duty of care towards the patient. Once she has assumed care of the patient, she needs a good reason for failing to provide that care. But when conscientious objection is the reason, another health care professional should be found who does not share the objection."</i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Once again this was not an issue in the case, Doctors and Nurses Organisations were not forewarned that judgments might be made on this point </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">so that they could be represented and make representations if they wished. Also it is reading something into an Act of Parliament which has not been put in by Parliament. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Those two elements of the Judgment are frankly disgraceful, Lady Hale and her fellow Judges stepping completely and unjustifiably outside their legitimate role and function as Judges and making judgments on issues which are not before them and on which the persons affected have not been allowed to make any representations. Frankly what annoys me as a lawyer is the sheer lack of professional competence in the way the Judgment is reasoned and the way in which the scope of the judgment goes quite improperly beyond the parties and issues involved.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Two final and closing points on what is a depressing evening</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In para 8 Lady Hale goes into depressing detail concerning various methods of Abortion provision and says, in passing.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"Feticide is also carried out where there is a risk of the foetus being born alive following the termination"</i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">To which I can only respond "a risk" ? So she happily accepts that the purpose of the legislation is amongst other things to ensure that babies who might be born alive are prevented from being born alive.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In para 14 she looks at the organisation of the Labour Ward where the Midwives worked</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"Since 2010, there have been about 6000 births a year at the Southern General Hospital and just under 60 terminations a year in the Labour Ward."</i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Therefore since Abortions are just 1% of the work in this ward it would not have caused Glasgow NHS any real difficulties to have "reasonably accommodated" the conscientious objections of these Midwives.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In conclusion the case is an overall disaster for good honourable pro-life Doctors and Nurses who may well find themselves either pushed out of medicine altogether or forced to accept that they can never progress and accept supervisory medical posts </span></div>
Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-75877151069889816352014-12-08T14:37:00.005+00:002014-12-08T14:37:51.470+00:00Jehovah Witnesses and Blood Transfusions<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">For some strange reason the press today are covering two stories about cases that happened months ago see the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/08/judge-rules-jehovahs-witness-boy-blood-transfusion?commentpage=1" target="_blank">Guardian</a> </span></b>& the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11279376/Doctors-can-ignore-deeply-held-views-of-two-Jehovahs-Witnesses-to-treat-their-burns-victim-son.html" target="_blank">Telegraph</a> </span></b> for example.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The cases both relate to Jehovah Witnesses and their well known disapproval of Blood Transfusions. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/3486.html" target="_blank">NHS v Child B [2014] EWHC 3486 (Fam</a>)</span></b></span><span style="color: #0000ee; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>(01 August 2014)</u></b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Mr Justice Moylan permitted Doctors to give a Blood Transfusion to, what he described as "a very young child" against the wishes of the childs devout Jehovah Witness parents. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In para 5 the Judge noted</span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"It is the unanimous view of the clinical team that the best practice treatment of B is skin grafting and that there is a significant risk that he will require a blood transfusion during this procedure."</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">and in para 10</span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"the consultant expresses the opinion that, in the event of a skin graft taking place without the ability to give a blood transfusion, there is a risk of death."</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Judge summed up his decision in para 18</span><br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: #274e13;">My decision must be determined by my assessment of what is in B's best interests because my paramount consideration is B's welfare. In reaching my decision, based on balancing all the factors bearing on the issue of B's welfare, I must weigh in that balance the wishes, opinions and views of B's parents. They alone have parental responsibility. But, as Ward LJ said in In </span><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/254.html" target="_blank">re A (Children)(Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147</a></span><span style="color: #274e13;">, although I must give "very great respect" to the parents' wishes, they are "subordinate to welfare"</span></span><span style="color: #274e13;">.</span></i></b><br />
<b><i><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></i></b>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This decision therefore was predictable because the Court was having to take a decision on behalf of a child who could not make his own informed decision</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">By contrast in <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/454.html" target="_blank">Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals Foundation Trust v LM [2014] EWCOP 454 (26 February 2014) </a></span></b>Mr Justice Peter Jackson refused to allow Doctors to administer a Blood Transfusion to a <b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">"gravely ill 63-year-old female Jehovah's Witness."</span></i></b> known as LM, in para 11 he noted </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">"On 12 February, LM was seen by two doctors in the gastroenterology team. She told them that she was adamant that she would not want treatment with any blood products. They felt that she had full capacity to make this decision with an awareness of the consequences."</span></i></b>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Following this condition of LM deteriorated so that she could not communicated. The Hospital was concerned as to whether she could be given a Blood Transfusion which might help her or whether to respect her wishes and see her die. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Judge decided para 21</span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"I am satisfied that LM understood the nature, purpose and effects of the proposed treatment, including that refusal of a blood transfusion might have fatal consequences."</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">and on that basis the Judge ruled that a Blood Transfusion should not be given and subsequently LM died.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Neither case creates any new law or sets out any new principle. The question in both cases was the same namely is the person needing the Transfusion in any position to make a decision refusing the treatment. In the case of a child the answer was No so the Court made the decision but in the case of the adult the answer was yes so their decision was respected. </span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-52252184526699423172014-12-05T17:56:00.000+00:002014-12-06T17:22:31.982+00:00The Unborn Child and its Legal Rights<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In my <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/abortion-back-in-legal-spotlight.html" target="_blank">Blog posting on 11 November</a></span></b> I mentioned the case before the Court of Appeal concerning a child (CP) born with <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome" target="_blank">Fetal Alcohol Syndrome</a></span></b> who is in local authority care. This is not directly a Religion Law case but since Abortion and the rights of the Unborn Child are of concern to many religious believers it is appropriate to cover it here.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the case of <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1554.html" target="_blank">CP (A Child) v First-Tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation) [2014] EWCA Civ 1554</a></span></b> the Local Authority brought the claim on behalf of CP in order to claim claim Criminal Injuries Compensation for her. To succeed they first had to establish that CP's mother had committed a criminal offence contrary to <b style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/23" style="color: #3d81ee; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">s23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. </a></span></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #274e13; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><b><i><u>23 Maliciously administering poison, &c. so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm.</u></i></b></span></span><br style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;" /><b style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><i><span style="color: #274e13;">Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty</span></i></b></span><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">There did not have to be a Criminal prosecution of the mother in order for there to be a Criminal Injuries Compensation claim but in order for an award to be made the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) had to be satisfied that a crime had been committed</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">The claim for Criminal Injuries Compensation had been dismissed by the Upper Tribunal in<span style="color: blue;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/638.html" style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">CICA v FTT and CP (CIC) [2013] UKUT 638 (AAC)</a><span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;"> </span>and was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The core question for the Court was whether CP was in law<b><i><span style="color: #274e13;"> "any other person" </span></i></b>at the time the "</span><b style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><i><span style="color: #274e13;">poison or other destructive or noxious thing</span></i></b><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">" ie was <b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">"administered"</span></i></b> to her. It was agreed that CP's mother had drunk a grossly excessive amount of Alcohol during her pregnancy and it was this alcohol that had caused CP's disabilities however was CP a <b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">"person" </span></i></b>before she was born. Sadly but perhaps predictably the Court of Appeal said No. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">Counsel for CP relied heavily on the House of Lords case of </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1997/31.html" target="_blank">Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998] A.C. 245</a></span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> which involved a defendant who stabbed a woman in the stomach, knowing her to be pregnant. Shortly afterwards she went into labour and gave birth to a grossly premature child, who survived for only 121 days. The House of Lords held that a foetus was an unique organism and at that stage was neither a distinct person nor an adjunct of the mother and therefore there could not be a conviction for murder however there was sufficient for a conviction for manslaughter.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">It was argued on behalf of CP that since the House of Lords had decided that the foetus becomes a person when it is born and had decided that manslaughter was a continuing act running from the moment of the attack on the mother to the death of the child after birth, there was no good reason why the criminal law should not equally protect a foetus from conduct resulting from deliberate acts causing foreseeable harm and which resulted in grievous bodily harm evident after birth.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></span>
</span><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">For the CICA it was argued that the Upper Tribunal had reached the right decision in para 16 of its decision where it said:</span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i><span style="color: #274e13; font-size: large;">16: If CP was not a person whilst her mother was engaging in the relevant actions, then she was not another person for the purposes of s23 and as a matter of law her mother could not have committed a criminal offence contrary to s23 in relation to her unborn child.</span></i></b></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Court of Appeal took the same approach </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i><span style="color: #274e13; font-size: large;">40:Thus in the case of a foetus, it was legitimate to find a chain of causation extending from the initial insult to the foetus which triggered its premature birth through to the point of death some time after birth, by which stage the child had undoubtedly achieved legal personality. A close examination of the language used by Lords Mustill and Hope shows clearly firstly that it has to be seen in the context of homicide, and secondly that it was used in the context of a foetus which suffered injury and which subsequently died after birth. It was common ground that violence done to a foetus resulting in a still birth could not found criminal liability. In cases where the child is born alive, the actus reus cannot crystallise until the time of death.</span></i></b></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">
</span></span></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i><span style="color: #274e13; font-size: large;">41: I consider that the situation is rather different in relation to the s23 offence. If the foetus is not another person at the time of the administration of the noxious substance then the offence cannot be complete at that point. The situation is distinct from the crime of manslaughter which requires death in order to complete the crime.</span></i></b></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></span>
<div style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Court also took into account the fact that in<b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/28/section/1" target="_blank"> section 1 of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976</a></span></b> Parliament had specifically legislated that a Mother could not be sued for damage caused to her child by actions of the Mother during pregnancy and concluded </span></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<div style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><b><i><span style="color: #274e13; font-size: large;">66: The law would be incoherent if a child were unable to claim compensation from her mother for breach of a duty of care owed during pregnancy, but the mother was criminally liable for causing the harm which gave rise to damage and a right to compensation under the 1995 Act.</span></i></b></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<span style="font-size: large;">On the basis of the law as it stands I can understand the decision and I respect the fact that the Court of Appeal made it clear that it was open to Parliament to legislate for the unborn child to have legal rights in this situation but it was not the task of the Courts to do so.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<span style="font-size: large;">As someone who was involved as an Intervenor in this case solely in response to the the, completely unnecessary, decision by BPAS to become an Intervenor I am sorry to read that <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bpas.org/bpasknowledge.php?year=2014&npage=0&page=81&news=686" target="_blank">BPAS are trumpeting the decision</a></span></b> as some sort of victory for Womens Autonomy. At the end of the day we have a Child severely injured by the actions of her mother and a child who will probably require care and help for the rest of her life. There is no victory in this case and there are no winners <span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> </span></span></div>
</span></span></div>
Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-78586163931004770042014-11-28T16:33:00.000+00:002014-11-28T16:33:33.529+00:00Equality Guidance published by Catholic Bishops<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">A new guidance document </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><a href="http://www.catholicnews.org.uk/content/download/53040/409608/file/equality-law-in-practice-2014.pdf" target="_blank">Applying Equality Law in Practice: Guidance for Catholics and Catholic Organisations</a></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">has been published by the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.cbcew.org.uk/CBCEW-Home/Departments/Christian-Responsibility-and-Citizenship" target="_blank">Christian Responsibility and Citizenship Department</a></span></b> of the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.cbcew.org.uk/" target="_blank">Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales</a></span></b>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Bishops Conference says that the new Guidance </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"Will help Catholics gain a deeper understanding of this area of law and remove any misconceptions caused by its perceived complexity. It is important to note that the guide is not intended as a replacement for specialist legal advice.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>The guide makes clear that if any issue arises that might lead to liability under equality law, it is strongly recommended that reader consults a solicitor or legal advisor."</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">About the guide, Archbishop Peter Smith, chairman of the Christian Responsibility and Citizenship Department said</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"The aim of this guide is to offer some clear practical guidance on a complex area of law. It is not a substitute for taking professional legal advice but it aims to raise awareness on what the law allows and to enable potential problems to be anticipated and averted.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"There is both scope and sometimes a need for Catholics to make use of the new law’s provisions which can protect religious freedom."</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Whilst the Guidance is, of course, primarily aimed at the needs of Catholics and Catholic organisations it should be of interest to any Religious Organisation looking to understand what their legal rights are</span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-42535680971644596612014-11-18T16:36:00.002+00:002014-11-19T21:03:47.013+00:00Freedom of Speech and Oxford University Students<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Back in 2012 I wrote a <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/students-at-university-college-london.html" target="_blank">blog about Students at University College London</a></span></b> trying to dictate how the subject of Abortion should be handled in University debates and trying in effect to prevent pro-life groups having any platform.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Sadly the same intolerant views have surfaced in Oxford University where<b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://oxfordstudent.com/2014/11/17/christ-church-cancels-abortion-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-129021" target="_blank"> Christ Church College has caved into intimidation and have cancelled a debate </a></span></b>on "Abortion Culture" organised by Oxford Students for Life who had arranged for there to be 2 speakers 1 for and 1 against but even that degree of balance was not enough for the pro-abortion crowd who were pretty blatant about the intimidation and disruption they planned</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><i><b><span style="color: #274e13;">“We thought we should go and say hi! Bring your friends, and if you want take along some non-destructive but oh so disruptive instruments to help demonstrate to the anti-choicers just what we think of their ‘debate’.”</span></b></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/1577466619142848/?pnref=story" target="_blank">This particular Face Book page</a></span></b> has now, for some reason, been removed but I saw it myself before it was removed and can testify to the words used. It was headed with the words </span><b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><span style="color: #274e13;">"What the f*** is an abortion culture ?"</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> using the full "F" word. Frankly I have represented crack head yobs who could express themselves more elegantly than those "students" at what is supposed to be one of the leading Universities in the world</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Anyway the actions of the members of the threatening disruptive group could constitute a criminal offence of Harassment under <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.harassmentlaw.co.uk/law/act.htm" target="_blank">s1A Protection from Harassment Act 1997</a></span></b> as applied by s7(3A) of the same Act. In addition the College, and Oxford University as a whole, has a legal duty under <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61/section/43" target="_blank">s43 Education (No 2) Act 1986</a></span></b> to </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><i><span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers”</span></span></i></b><br />
<b><i><span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></i></b>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">and both the college and the University appear to have failed in their legal as well as their moral responsibilities. Freedom of speech is precious and without freedom of speech no other freedoms are safe. It should never be forgotten that in Nazi Germany it was idealistic students who were the first ones to throw books into the flames. Those students who succeeded in stopping this debate probably consider themselves to be radical left wingers but the reality is that they are fascists who need to be faced up to and defeated. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><u>UPDATE 19 November </u></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In researching this subject and trying to make sense of some of the jargon on the oppositions Facebook page I discovered that I am a "Cisgendered Binary person without a Uterus" otherwise known as a Male (and they say Lawyers overcomplicate !)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">An "Interesting" in the sense of "Completely Self Centred arrogant" <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-helped-shut-down-an-abortion-debate-between-two-men-because-my-uterus-isnt-up-for-their-discussion-9867200.html" target="_blank">article in The Independent </a></span></b> by one of the protesters who got the talk cancelled </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However not all is Doom and Gloom the Twitter Feed of a certain <span style="color: blue;"><a href="https://twitter.com/WillNeaverson" target="_blank">Will Neaverson </a></span>(who seems to be an Officer at Christ Church) states (Nov 16) <b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">"I'm proposing a motion to request my college not grant permission for Oxford Students for Life to host a 'debate' on abortion. Updates soon."</span></i></b> which would normally have upset me until I noticed that he describes his current status as <b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">"Researching for North Korea thesis". </span></i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></i></b></span><big><big><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><big><big><big><span style="font-size: small;">which
made me laugh out loud. An Oxford student studying North Korea who
wants to close down democratic debate in Oxford, you simply couldn't
make it up. He is obviously a very good student of his subject.</span><span style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"> </span></big></big></big></span></big></big>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-4803267850058396462014-11-11T10:52:00.000+00:002014-11-12T18:54:20.003+00:00Abortion Back in the Legal Spotlight<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Abortion is back in Court in 2 cases at present.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Supreme Court is hearing an Appeal by Glasgow NHS against the decision of the Court of Session recognising the right to conscientious objection of Midwives laid down in </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="color: blue;"> </span><a href="http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2013/2013CSIH36.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Doogan & Anor v NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board [2013] ScotCS CSIH_36 </span></a></b></span><br />
<b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></b>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-size: large;">I discussed this case in this Blog at</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><b><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/call-midwife-i-want-abortion.html" target="_blank">Call the Midwife - I want an Abortion ! 7 MARCH 2012</a></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">and</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><b><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/call-midwife-i-want-abortion-2.html" target="_blank">Call the Midwife I want an Abortion ! - 2 24 APRIL 2013</a></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">so I shall await the Supreme Court decision with interest and in the hope that it will confirm the clear and well reasoned decision of the Court of Session in April 2013</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">At the other end of the Courts structure a Doctor has been summonsed to appear at Manchester Magistrates Court in response to<b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11217504/Doctor-to-appear-in-court-in-UKs-first-gender-abortion-prosecution.html" target="_blank"> a private prosecution relating to alleged Abortions offered because of the Gender of the Unborn Child.</a></span></b> It is argued by the prosecutor that Gender Selection Abortion is illegal under the terms of the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/contents" target="_blank">Abortion Act 1967</a></span></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><b><br /></b></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">I covered this issue in my Blog post <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/is-sex-selective-abortion-illegal_8.html" target="_blank">"Is Sex Selective Abortion Illegal ? 8 September 2013"</a></span></b> when I came to the reluctant conclusion that Sex Selective Abortion, though morally repugnant, was not illegal. I therefore do not expect the private prosecution to succeed however I wish the prosecutors well and will be delighted if I am proved wrong and the Abortionist in question is convicted.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">Finally on a Non Abortion , but linked, issue the Court of Appeal are currently considering whether Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in a child caused by the grossly excessive drinking of his mother during her pregnancy could be a crime under <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/23" target="_blank">s23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. </a></span></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><b><i>23 Maliciously administering poison, &c. so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm.</i></b></span></span><br />
<b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><i><span style="color: #274e13;">Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">The issue in the case does not involve an actual prosecution but relates to an attempt to obtain some financial compensation for the severely injured child involved. Since the Mother has no money the claim was pursued under the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">which is why it was necessary to argue that the conduct was a crime. As a practicing criminal lawyer, I do not believe that this case will lead to pregnant women being prosecuted over their drinking or other habits it will I think be seen by the Court of Appeal that the criminal law is being used as a "peg" for a civil claim. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">That said though I am very sympathetic to the Child in the case I think there may be real problems in establishing that the mother, however excessive her drinking, was acting either unlawfully or maliciously and that problem was what caused the case to be lost in the Upper Tribunal in </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/638.html" target="_blank">CICA v FTT and CP (CIC) [2013] UKUT 638 (AAC)</a>.</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"> We shall just have to wait and see what the Court of Appeal decides.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">Incidentally I was slightly involved in the case wearing my <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.thomasmorelegal.org.uk/" target="_blank">Thomas More Legal Centre</a></span></b> hat. The Abortion provider <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bpas.org/bpashealthcare.php?page=34" target="_blank">BPAS</a></span></b> and the organisation <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.birthrights.org.uk/news/" target="_blank">Birthrights</a></span></b> applied to become Intervenors in the case in order to argue for the complete bodily autonomy of the woman so I became involved acting for the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.righttolife.org.uk/news/rtl-intervene-compensation-case-foetal-alcohol-syndrome-fas/" target="_blank">Pro-Life Alliance</a></span></b> in arguing as Intervenor for the equal rights and dignity of the unborn child</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">It may well be that the Court of Appeal will ignore both interventions and concentrate instead on the wording of the 1861 Act and the details of the Criminal Injuries scheme but I am glad to have had some small part in ensuring that the arguments of BPAS were countered and the Court was reminded that unborn children are human and entitled to respect and dignity</span></span><br />
<br />Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-52657863286239714322014-11-10T18:50:00.000+00:002014-11-11T16:14:52.839+00:00Oh Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This is a somewhat personal and possibly off subject posting but it is a subject I feel strongly about and, what the heck, this is my Blog so I can decide what goes in it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Some weeks ago in the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.magazinesabout.co.uk/magazines/view/Catholic+Times" target="_blank">“Catholic Times”</a></span> </b> there was an article by a Catholic Priest called Monsignor Basil Loftus who writes a weekly column called “Vatican Counsel” where he frequently expresses bizarre and heretical views on Religion and History. I try to avoid his articles as much as possible but occasionally I do read him which is an experience a bit like prodding a toothache just to confirm it is still hurting.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Anyway a few weeks ago he wrote an article in the Catholic Times where he finished with the words that he looked forward to a</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b>"a Franciscan revolution to eclipse in drama and extent the French Revolution" </b></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>(The reference to a “Franciscan revolution” is a reference to Pope Francis, Mgr Loftus having appointed himself as chief prophet and interpreter of the frequently off the cuff comments of Pope Francis. For myself when considering the (often opaque) comments attributed to Pope Francis I bear in mind that they usually come via unofficial English translations of remarks made in Italian by a native Spanish speaker with a strong Argentinian accent)</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Anyway what sparked my anger with Mgr Loftus was not his remarks about his imaginary Franciscan revolution but rather his extraordinary praise for the <span style="color: blue;"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror" target="_blank">French Revolution</a></b></span> , not the first time he has praised this destructive murderous event in world history. I therefore wrote a letter which said </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b>“ Even by his own standards the suggestion by Mgr Basil Loftus (19 October) that he looks forward to "a Franciscan revolution to eclipse in drama and extent the French Revolution" is bizarre.</b></i></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b><span style="color: #274e13;">The French Revolution was the cause of the death of thousands judicially murdered in the reign of terror. The </span><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Compiegne" target="_blank">Carmelites of Compiegne</a></span> <span style="color: #274e13;">were guillotined simply for being Nuns and they are merely the best known of the thousands of Catholic Priests, Nuns and believers who were also sent to the guillotine solely for </span><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution" target="_blank">the crime of being practising Catholics.</a></span></b></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b><span style="color: #274e13;">Besides the</span> <span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror" target="_blank">reign of terror</a></span> <span style="color: #274e13;">the Revolution led to</span> <span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendee" target="_blank">massacres in the Vendee </a></span><span style="color: #274e13;">and other regions of France and plunged Europe into thirty years of war and destruction stretching from Madrid to Moscow. Is that seriously the "drama and extent" Mgr Loftus wishes on the Church and the world ?</span></b></i></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b>If Citizen Loftus wishes to praise the French Revolution as a model to be followed then he has of course got the liberty to do so but it is a desecration of the memory of the numerous Catholic victims of that revolution for such praise to be uttered by someone who claims the title of Catholic Priest. “</b></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I hoped that the letter would be published and having made my point I assumed that Mgr Loftus would then go on as before like most writers of articles who accept a degree of criticism as part and parcel of their job and are pleased to at least know that someone is reading them. For Mgr Loftus however such a “normal” response is not enough and in an expression of hypersensitivity verging on paranoia he actually wrote a letter himself which was published in the papers letters column as if having 800 words published each week wasn't enough. In his letter he said</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b>“ Yes, the violence of the few did degenerate into the madness of the many, but the French Revolution inspired a continent-wide socio-political revolution of which both Church and State still feel the beneficial effects and, no less importantly, are still building upon.</b></i></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b>It is also necessary to recognise that the violence against elements of Catholicism was to no small extent occasioned by the manner in which the institutional Church had identified itself with an oppressive regime which denied basic human dignity to that vast majority of humankind, which had neither civil nor ecclesial rights.</b></i></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b>Today, for virtually the first time, Pope Francis is making it possible for voice of every baptised man and woman to be heard in the Church.</b></i></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b>This would not have been possible without the progressive effects which the French Revolution inspired. The analogy is quite justifiable.</b></i></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b>The puerile attempt at personal vituperation is particularly demeaning in your correspondent as a professional gentleman.</b></i></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b>Not only is it lamentable in itself, but it also devalues the otherwise positive contribution which the letter affords as a springboard for further clarification which I am happy to make. “</b></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Well I have a number of points to make but if Mgr Lofus really feels that I was engaging in “personal vituperation” in my letter then frankly he needs to get out more. As most normal people would have realised when I called him “Citizen Loftus” it was a tongue in cheek reference to the fact that during the French Revolution the titles “citizen” and “citizeness” were compulsory and indeed during that era Mgr Loftus would have been Guillotined for using the title “Monsignor”. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">However I doubt if that would have happened in his case since Mgr Loftus is not the stuff of which martyrs are made. Having read a number of his articles I am quite sure that he would have been eager to swear to the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Constitution_of_the_Clergy" target="_blank">“Civil Constitution of the Clergy”</a></span></b> which in effect nationalised the French Church and made it and its beliefs subservient to the French state. He also I suspect would have been quite happy to participate in the worship of the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason" target="_blank">“Cult of Reason”</a></span></b> or the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_de_Robespierre" target="_blank">Robespierre</a></span></b> inspired <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being" target="_blank">“Cult of the Supreme Being”</a></span></b>. I am quite certain he would not have joined the thousands who were maintained their faith and were <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution" target="_blank">sent to the Guillotine for the crime of being believing Catholics.</a></span></b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">For a Catholic priest such as Mgr Loftus to praise the French Revolution for its supposed beneficial effects is a form of Holocaust Denial akin to a Rabbi saying “at least Hitler built good Autobahns” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The reality is that the French Revolution did not help in the human search for freedom quite the contrary it led to a murderous tyranny 100 times worse that the Government which it replaced and in the form of the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Tribunal" target="_blank">Revolutionary Tribunal </a></span></b> the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Suspects" target="_blank">Law of Suspects</a></span></b> and the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_22_Prairial" target="_blank">Law of 22 Prairial</a></span></b> it established the legal and institutional blueprint for many other dictatorships in particular that of Lenin and Stalin both of whom were admirers of the Reign of Terror and who followed its example. The French Revolution and its evils put back democratic progress and liberalisation throughout Europe.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In any event to argue, as Mgr Loftus does, that mass murder is justified for the greater good is an historically illiterate and morally repellent argument especially coming from a priest who is supposed to preach the Gospel according to Jesus Christ, not the Gospel according to Robespierre and Stalin</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Or, as <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Roland" target="_blank">Marie Roland</a></span></b> put it on her way to the Guillotine </span><br />
<b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><i>" Oh Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name !". </i></b><br />
<br />Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-56328238701729995892014-07-10T17:02:00.001+01:002014-07-10T17:02:39.794+01:00Sharia :Law in India <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">A fascinating case before the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/" target="_blank">Supreme Court of India</a></span></b> which deals with a question which is also debated in the UK namely the role and status of <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/arbitration-and-mediation-services.html" target="_blank">Sharia Tribunals</a></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In the case of <a href="http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41747" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">Madan v India SCIndia 7 Jul7 2014</span></b> </a>an application was made for a declaration that the activities of Shariah tribunals were unlawful and that the various bodies sponsoring them should be disbanded.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">As is usual in these cases the Judge was provided with what he described as <b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">"the galore of obnoxious Fatwas "</span></i></b> with some pretty appalling examples being quoted. The basis of the case was said to be that the </span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"All India Muslim Personal Law Board ... is striving for the establishment of parallel Muslim judicial system in India. </i></b></span><b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><i>According to the petitioner, adjudication of disputes is essentially the function of sovereign State, which can never be abdicated or parted with"</i></b><br />
<b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><i><br /></i></b>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Judge accepted that Sharia Tribunals existed and were issuing <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Fatwas</span></a></b> but disagreed that they therefore constituted a parallel Muslim judicial system. He said that a Fatwa </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<b><i><span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">"has no legal sanction and can not be enforced by any legal process either by the Dar-ul-Qaza issuing that or the person concerned or for that matter anybody. The person or the body concerned may ignore it and it will not be necessary for anybody to challenge it before any court of law. It can simply be ignored. In case any person or body tries to </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">impose it, their act would be illegal. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that Dar-ul-Qazas and Nizam-e-Qaza are running a parallel judicial system is misconceived."</span></span></i></b><br />
<b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><i><br /></i></b>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">However the Judge did not give a blank cheque to Sharia Tribunals to do as they wish. He was concerned by one particular case where a wife who had allegedly been raped by her father in law then had a Fatwa issued dissolving her marriage. The Fatwa had not been applied for by either the wife or her husband but by a journalist and the Judge did condemn the issuing of a Fatwa in such circumstances</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>"Issuance of Fatwa on rights, status and obligation of individual Muslim, in our opinion, would not be permissible, unless asked for by the person concerned or in case of incapacity, by the person interested. Fatwas touching upon the rights of an individual at the instance of rank strangers may cause irreparable damage and therefore, would be </i></b></span><b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><i>absolutely uncalled for. It shall be in violation of basic human rights. It cannot be used to punish innocent. No religion including Islam punishes the innocent. Religion cannot be allowed to be merciless to the victim. Faith cannot be used as dehumanising force.</i></b><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>.......</i></b></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<b><i><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></i></b><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>no Dar-ul-Qazas or for that matter, any body or institution by any name, shall give verdict or issue Fatwa touching upon the rights, status and obligation, of an individual unless such an individual has asked for it."</i></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-86352588373563757712014-07-09T10:29:00.000+01:002014-07-09T20:28:39.601+01:00I Confess ! - Seal of the Confessional in Louisiana<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The recent case of <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2014/13C2879.pc.pdf" target="_blank">George Charlett Deceased</a></span></b> No. <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2014/13C2879.jdh.con.pdf" target="_blank">2013-C-2879</a></span></b> before the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.lasc.org/" target="_blank">Louisiana Supreme Court</a></span></b> has aroused concern amongst Catholic Clergy that it could be the first round in a battle to restrict the seal of the confessional</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In the case the plaintiff, a child, alleges she was sexually touched by George Charlett a parishioner, not a clergyman, at her local Church. She alleges that she told her Parish Priest what was going on but he in effect did nothing. The estate of George Charlett was being sued and also the Diocese for the alleged negligent actions of the Priest in not reporting the allegations to the authorities. It is implied that she told the Priest whilst in confession though that specific point is a little unclear from the sparse facts in the Supreme Court judgment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">What is clear is that the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.diobr.org/" target="_blank">Diocese of Baton Rouge</a></span></b> tried to have the evidence of what was said in the Confessional excluded from the Girls evidence and that is the question that the Supreme Court was considering. They, not surprisingly, decided that even though the law in Louisiana did recognise that conversations in the Confessional could attract privilege all that meant was that someone could not, in general, be forced to give evidence of what was said in the Confessional but that is very different to saying that someone can be prevented from giving evidence </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">of what was said in the Confessional </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">if they themselves wish to do so. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The<b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3G.HTM" target="_blank"> Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church</a></span></b> is very strict about the inviolability of the seal of the confessional </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.</span></i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">and so to that extent I can see the reason why the Diocese was concerned since if what the girl is saying is untrue the Priest is not allowed to say so or to give evidence about what was really said in the confessional. This is the dilemma that famously faced Montgomery Clift in the Alfred Hitchcock movie<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OozmigeBDkg" target="_blank"> <b>"I Confess"</b></a></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zupotrE1AcE/U70IGYpeX9I/AAAAAAAAARE/TrvAD7urvUg/s1600/14-04-04+I+confess.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zupotrE1AcE/U70IGYpeX9I/AAAAAAAAARE/TrvAD7urvUg/s1600/14-04-04+I+confess.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: #274e13;">NB: One area of confusion</span></b> if you read the judgment and Catholic Canon Law is that in the judgment the phrase <b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">"the confessor"</span></i></b> is used to refer to the girl ie the person who is making the confession whilst in Canon Law <b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">"the confessor" </span></i></b>refers to the Priest ie the person hearing the confession.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I doubt if the case will be appealed to the US Supreme Court since it is still in its preliminary stages and no evidence has been heard yet. As the Louisiana Supreme Court judgment noted </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>Whether this particular priest owed this particular duty to the plaintiffs in this particular factual context is a mixed question of law and fact..............there exists material issues of fact concerning whether the communications between the child and the priest were confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the confessional that would trigger his duty to report. </i></b></span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In other words preventing the evidence being heard was, at this stage, premature. That said the issue of the<b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest%E2%80%93penitent_privilege_in_England" target="_blank"> "secrecy of the Confessional" </a></span></b>and how it applies in situations where the law requires suspicions/knowledge of child abuse to be reported is likely to become an increasing issue in various jurisdictions over the next decade</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>UPDATE SAME DAY</u></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Coincidences coincidences !!. Shortly after I had published the above regarding Confession in the US the excellent Frank Cranmer put up a post </span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u><a href="http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2014/07/09/oz-anglicans-reject-seal-of-confessional/" target="_blank">Oz Anglicans reject seal of confessional</a></u></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; text-align: left;">which is well worth reading. I agree with Franks conclusion</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>It seems likely, therefore, that the seal of the confessional will come under further scrutiny in the UK.</i></b></span></div>
</div>
Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-41048193031067937612014-07-04T10:13:00.000+01:002014-07-04T11:29:06.779+01:00MCCULLEN v. COAKLEY - Rights of Pro-lIfe Protestors<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In the case of <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf" target="_blank">McCullen v. Coakley 26 June 2014 USSC</a></span></b> the US Supreme Court had to grapple with the contentious issue of the rights of Pro-life counsellors and protestors in the vicinity of Abortion Clinics.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Massachusetts had passed a law which made it a crime to knowingly stand on a “public way or sidewalk” </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any “reproductive health </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">care facility,” defined as “a place, other than within or upon the </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">grounds of a hospital, where abortions are offered or performed.” </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Act exempted from </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">this prohibition employees or </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">agents of such facility acting within the scope of their employment.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Court held that this law was a breach of the free speech rights set out in the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Amendment" target="_blank">1st Amendment</a></span></b> to the US Constitution and a part of the judgment is worth repeating since it goes to the heart of the concept of free speech a concept that so many agree with in theory but disagree with in practice when it comes to the expression of views with which they disagree</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>"It is no accident that public streets and sidewalks have developed as venues for the exchange of ideas. Even today, they remain one of the few places where a speaker can be confident that he is not simply preaching to the choir. With respect to other means of communication, an individual confronted with an uncomfortable message can always turn the page, change the channel, or leave the Web site. Not so on public streets and sidewalks. There, a listener often encounters speech he might otherwise tune </i></b></span><b style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>out. In light of the First Amendment’s purpose “to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail,” FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U. S. 364, 377 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted), this aspect of traditional public fora is a virtue, not a vice"</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-19475224826393485012014-07-03T19:17:00.002+01:002014-07-04T09:17:37.272+01:00Hobby Lobby US Supreme Court Case<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The US Supreme Court in a close 5 - 4 judgement has decided that a "for-profit", ie commercial, business can still claim to religious protection for the beliefs of its, relatively small, group of owners.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf" target="_blank">Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Hobby Lobby Stores INC 30 June 2014 USSC</a></span></b> involved companies which were commercial but which nevertheless were run by a small number of individuals with specific religious beliefs which they attempted to put into practice in the running of their business. As the judgement explains</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the Greens [ie the owners] to “[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” App. in No. 13–354, pp. 134–135 (complaint).Each family member has signed a pledge to run the businesses in accordance with the family’s religious beliefs and to use the family assets to support Christian ministries. 723 F. 3d, at 1122. In accordance with those commitments, Hobby Lobby and Mardel stores close on Sundays,even though the Greens calculate that they lose millions in sales annually by doing so. Id., at 1122; App. in No. 13– 354, at 136–137. The businesses refuse to engage in profitable transactions that facilitate or promote alcohol use;they contribute profits to Christian missionaries and ministries; and they buy hundreds of full-page newspaper ads inviting people to “know Jesus as Lord and Savior.”</i></b></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">As a business <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/" target="_blank">Hobby Lobby</a></span></b> was required by the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare" target="_blank">Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act </a></span></b>to provide Health Insurance provisions for their employees which they did not object to indeed they had been providing Health Insurance even before it became compulsory. However the owners [the Green Family] did object to paying for 4 specific types of Contraceptives which, in effect acted as Abortifacients by preventing embryo implantation after fertilisation. The owners of the business objected to paying for this Abortion procedure which went against their religious beliefs. </span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The US Supreme Court is to be congratulated in that it properly understood and articulated the fundamental issue in the case namely, whether the law has the right to compel and individual to be moral complicit in an immoral act, which is a question issue that the British Courts have consistently failed to acknowledge let alone understand</span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><b>"The belief of the Greens ..... implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another."</b></i></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The main argument in the case revolved around the </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act" target="_blank">Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 </a></span></b>rather than the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Amendment" target="_blank">1st Amendment to the US Constitution</a></span></b>. The Act states that </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The main argument of the Secretary of Health revolved around whether a "for profit" corporation could claim to be involved in the <b><i><span style="color: #274e13;">"exercise of religion"</span></i></b>. In the judgment of the US Supreme Court such a corporation was entitled to the protection of claiming to exercise religion <b><u>depending on the facts</u></b> ie it is very unlikely that most for-profit corporations could claim protection under the Act but in cases of "closely held" corporations such as Hobby Lobby then the 1993 Act did apply.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Though the case has been widely proclaimed in the US it is a very specific case on very specific, and unusual facts and a very specific Act of Congress rather than the US Constitution so it is possible that it will have limited influence on jurisprudence internationally. However as already said at least the US Supreme Court has addressed the issue of moral complicity up front so that might encourage UK courts to do the same.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The issue was addressed to some extent by the<b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Session" target="_blank"> Inner House of the Court of Session</a></span></b> in<b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/call-midwife-i-want-abortion-2.html" target="_blank"> </a></span></b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/call-midwife-i-want-abortion-2.html" target="_blank">Doogan v NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board [2013] ScotCS CSIH_36</a></span></b> where the Court quoted with approval a South African case </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2000/11.html" target="_blank">Christian Education SA v Minister of Education (2001) 9 BHRC53</a></span></b> where the<b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_South_Africa" target="_blank"> </a></span></b></span><b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_South_Africa" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Constitutional </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Court of South Africa</span></a></span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> said</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<b style="background-color: white; color: #274e13; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">"believers cannot claim an automatic right to be exempted by their beliefs from the laws of the land. At the same time, the state should, wherever reasonably possible, seek to avoid putting believers to extremely painful and intensely burdensome choices of either being true to their faith or else respectful of the law. "</span></i></b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In this respect it is perhaps interesting that <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Hale" target="_blank">Lady Hale</a></span></b>, Justice of the <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom" target="_blank">UK Supreme Court</a></span></b>, emphasised the importance of issues of conscience in a speech on <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-140613.pdf" target="_blank">13 June 2014</a></span></b> when she cast doubt on the validity of the Supreme Court decision <b><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/73.html" target="_blank">Bull v Hall [2013] UKSC 73</a></span></b> which involved </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Christian B&B owners attempting to operate their B&B on Christian principles so perhaps the Hobby Lobby case will have some influence as a pointer that Courts should be reluctant to force anyone to act contrary to their conscience in business as well as elsewhere in life</span>Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.com0