We are restricting our submission to your consultation to the cases of Ladele and McFarlane. Firstly we wish to comment on your question whether the ‘justification’ test was applied correctly by the domestic courts in thesecases. Secondly we wish to comment on whether we agree that the concept of reasonable accommodation could be applied to the freedom to manifest of religion and belief. Thirdly we will outline particular issues from our own perspective as a Consortium that contains both religious and secular LGBT groups and other organisations which campaign for an end to faith- based homophobia and transphobia. Finally we will make a comment on your stated aim of the legal intervention, i.e. to help avoid costly and long drawn out legislation. 1. We strongly agree that the UK tribunals and courts applied the justification test correctly in the cases of Ladele and McFarlane. 2. We strongly disagree with the application of a concept of ‘reasonable adjustment’ for the manifestation of religion and belief in these cases. 3. We wish to make the following points: a. Many religious organisations and individuals with religious affiliations are concerned to eradicate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the UK, and support this commitment with a critical, progressive, developmental approach to secondary religious doctrines and their interpretation. To argue that the perpetuation of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is a manifestation of primary core religious belief is therefore invalid. b. The Ladele and McFarlane cases are not matters of religious freedom in the workplace. The manifestation of religious belief in the workplace cannot be subject to ‘reasonable adjustment’ in these cases as religious freedom’ expressed in this way means discrimination against those who are lesbian, gay or bisexual in society, whether they have no faith or a religious belief. Employers have an obligation to provide equality in the services they provide, and that includes expecting employees to act without discrimination. c. The current anti-discrimination legislation on the equal provision of goods and services is threatened by any change of judgement in the Ladele or McFarlane cases. If the judgements in the cases of Ladele and McFarlane are compromised there is a great danger that there will be, in effect, no equal access to goods and services for lesbian, gay and bisexual people in either the public or private sector. 4. We are also concerned that there are costly and long drawn out legal cases in the area of discrimination on the basis of religion and belief, particularly those involving the interface with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In our experience however it is unlikely these will be avoided by any of the changes you propose. Individuals and the organisations that back them in taking these cases are often motivated by matters unrelated to improving the legal framework. Note: Further details on the EHRC's legal intervention can be found on the EHRC's website Last upated: 25th September 2011 11:14:53 EBH |
|
|
|
CEC Headlines >
Cutting Edge Consortium Submission to the EHRC Consultation on proposed legal intervention at the European Court of Human Rights regarding UK legislation on religion and belief |