Rebecca Duffett spoke with Andrea Williams, Director of Christian Concern
Recent rulings against Christians have prompted the European Court of Human Rights to order the Government to make a formal statement on whether they believe that the rights of Christians are being infringed.
Currently, four Christian cases are being taken to Europe. Gary McFarlane, a counsellor who was sacked for saying that he would not give sex therapy to homosexual couples as it was against his Christian faith; Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee who was prevented from wearing a cross with her uniform; Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who was moved to a desk job and banned from working on hospital wards for wearing a cross around her neck; and Lillian Ladele, a registrar who was disciplined after refusing to conduct homosexual civil partnership ceremonies and wanting a conscience opt-out.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has since determined that Christians should be given more freedom to follow their beliefs in the workplace.
The UK's equality watchdog said judges had interpreted the law 'too narrowly' in cases where Christians claimed religious discrimination. It said on 11th July that, 'The way existing human rights and equality law has been interpreted by judges is insufficient to protect freedom of religion or belief. The courts have set the bar too high for someone to prove they have been discriminated against because of their religion or belief.'
The EHRC is now seeking to intervene on behalf of Christians in four religious discrimination cases soon to appear to before the European Court of Human Rights.
To find out more Rebecca spoke with Andrea Williams from Christian Concern.
Rebecca: Why are these cases going as high as the European Court of Human Rights?
Andrea: Because essentially here at the Christian Concern we won't rest until we are able to secure justice for those that simply as a result of living out and speaking out their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ find themselves unable to do so in the public realm here in the United Kingdom.
This is very important, because historically the government has essentially been saying throughout all of these cases, there is no problem; conscience is not eliminated. Christians are free to manifest their belief, but there is a limitation on manifestation of belief and the limitation comes when they have a public duty to do a certain thing such as presiding over same sex civil partnerships. They say that where that is the case, that duty over-rides religious manifestation. We say that this is unjust; we say that there has to be proper accommodation for religious conscience, for Christian conscience, in order for there to be a truly free and civilised society. You see, what happens when you suppress freedom of religion, what happens when you suppress freedom of conscience is that you suppress speech, you suppress action and the State begins to coerce and that's exactly what we've seen in these cases. It's the beginning of a kind of tyranny; it's the beginning of totalitarianism. We are not there in all its fullness, of course we're not in the United Kingdom right now, but what we need to do is recognise the very first signs and acts in order to continue to ensure that we remain a country that flows with freedom, a country that's worthy of our great Christian heritage.
Rebecca: Do you think that the European court was quite surprised at the number of Christian cases coming to it?
Andrea: For sure. When I visit member states in Europe, I go and visit their permanent representatives at various points and they are shocked at what is happening in Great Britain. Just last week I was in the Romanian parliament and their MPs simply couldn't believe the cases that we have at the Christian Legal Centre. They couldn't believe that a nurse was suspended for offering prayer. They couldn't believe that a nurse was not allowed to wear her small cross on front line duty. They couldn't believe that a general practitioner got hauled before his professional body simply for talking to somebody about Jesus. They couldn't believe that a van driver was asked to take the cross from his van out because it was deemed to be offensive. These cases were beyond the realms of their imagination in Romania. I think what was very striking for me as I spoke to politicians there, was that they have come out of a repressive regime, and they understand the critical importance of respecting religious freedom. They see the first plank of freedom once you begin to suppress manifestation of belief, religious speak, then what happens is other beginnings of something that is repressive and closed. They see it very clearly because they have lived under a tyranny.
Rebecca: The European court isn't getting the same number of similar cases from other EU countries?
Andrea: No it isn't. They are coming from the United Kingdom.
Rebecca: And do you think that the increasing influence of Europe might help the Christian cases?
Andrea: I think it's a wonderful opportunity for Christians everywhere to get behind Shirley Chaplin, Nadia Eweida, Lillian Ladele and Gary MacFarlane, and say we stand with these Christians and we ask the European Court to do justice, and we ask the European Court to speak to the government in this country - in the United Kingdom and to say to them that they must do justice. You know the eyes of the world will be watching these decisions and it's a time for justice to be done and we need, as Christians in this country, to apply political pressure to ensure that that is done. This is something we absolutely vitally need to do. We need to call Christians out as say we support these cases.
Rebecca: Do you think that Christians of other countries in the EU could help us out?
Andrea: I believe they will and I certainly believe there are going to be interventions from various quarters. I hope to see that and from various countries and from people saying this ought not to continue.
The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms. Any expressed views were accurate at the time of publishing but may or may not reflect the views of the individuals concerned at a later date.