Harry’s Place

Fabulous

I think I’ll call her office up and congratulate her.

Well done Diane!

Excellent.
Though why-oh-why does it have to be Diane Abbott!

That’s some crisp writing there. If only everyone could express themselves so succinctly.

Well yeah, make it crystal clear that public servants must do their job without let or favour. Still have to go through the proper processes respecting employee rights, which would appear to have been the main problem in islington.

I don’t always agree with Diane, but this motion deserves the support of every MP.

So it won’t be the green light for managers to abuse and bully subordinates that brett appears from his recent OP’s to favour.

Damn. I’m going to have to write to my Tory MP to ask him to support this.

(TBF, he did sign the one oppposing a boycott of Israeli universities)

I’ve just called Diane’s office. She feels very strongly about this issue, and thinks that it is vital that action is taken swiftly about it.

All MPs should sign this motion.

Perhaps Davis Davis, the great human rights campaigner, might be induced to sign!

Is this something people can ask their MPs to support?

(http://www.writetothem.com/ makes it trivial to do so.)

… But I bet they won’t. There were a few tens of MP’s dead set against civil partnerships iirc including Nick Winterton who cited (wait for it) religious reasons.
Davis didn’t vote on civil unions according to theyworkforyou.

Well, he might be in favour of it. Why not write to him!

Write to the all the Wintertons at all their addresses.

“Still have to go through the proper processes respecting employee rights, which would appear to have been the main problem in islington”

The main problem was someone refusing to carry out an aspect of their job because their religious beliefs ask them to discriminate against gay people. The reaction of management and colleagues appears to have given grounds for a successful tribunal (although the tribunal has also made a quite extraordinary statement about freedom of conscience, which will hopefully be overturned) but lets be clear: there would have been no problem had she not expressed a homophobic belief that meant she had no intention of giving equal public service to gay people. Her colleagues and management had no problem with her religion, until she used her religion to justify discriminating against people. Even then, there’s no evidence they had a problem with her religion - merely the homophobic belief and refusal to do her job that followed it.

As a Trade Unionist, I’m a keen defender of employee rights. And also capable of spotting a whinging martyr exploiting them when I see one.

So it won’t be the green light for managers to abuse and bully subordinates that brett appears from his recent OP’s to favour.

I think that’s a little unfair. It may have been lost in the midst of a heated debate, but Ladele was absolutely entitled to a duty of care from her employer that, given she experienced abuse and intimidation at work, they failed to provide. On this specific point, it seems only right the trbunal would find for her. What is wrong is the tribunal’s endorsement of a religiously-motivated request for a dispensation that effectively permitted Ladele to pick and choose those Islington residents she deigned to serve.

Diane Abbott, I salute you.*

(* You have no idea how difficult that was for me.)

I’ll be clear, if LL wants to abjure from officiating at gay c/p, she should do so with hets. If Islington successfully renegotiates her contract, she’s stuck.

And she’s a Christian. And racism ain’t a direct comparison. And a c/p implies consential sex is permitted.

Ditto Brownie on all counts. Inculding the gnashing of teeth required in the brackets.

Here in the United States, the Bible has been used by a lot of apparently sincere Christians over the last two centuries to justify all sorts of racism against Blacks from slavery to segregation. This has included opposition to interracial marriage as well.

In Northern Ireland, sincere Christians have been killing each other over the last four hundred years over which one of their faiths was the correct follower of the Prince of Peace.

So I applaud Diane Abbott’s Motion and believe it should be passed.

Diane Abbott, I salute you.*

(* You have no idea how difficult that was for me.)

Well I found myself agreeing with Hazel Blears in the post below so I know how you feel.

I agree. Public servants are there to carry out public policy. This is not even close.

What concerns me is the implications for religious freedom when, for example, a Christian photographer in New Mexico recently was legally punished for refusing to phtograph a Lesbian wedding.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1207764182.shtml

Lol @ tim. Fwliw Sir Nick has, I’m told, a fine singing voice, he solos at the Macc United Reform Church carol service every year. Doubt it would do much good but perhaps someone should prank him with a gay male voice choir or something.

OK so let’s widen the debate a bit. What do posters think about this situation - should the GPs concerned be struck off?

“Due to his strong feelings about the abortion debate, James Gerrard refuses to refer any of his patients seeking the operation. During his training in the Nineties he also opted out of any tuition on abortion.

“Medically, abortion really isn’t a popular thing to do, it is not a very technical or demanding operation and it’s actually quite disheartening,” he says.

“There’s no handshakes or slaps on the backs afterwards, or the sense that you’ve done something great for someone. The best you can hope for is sense of relief that it is over.

“In my day to day work I deal with requests for terminations but I have a conscientious objection to that. During the consultation I will tell them because of my personal views I cannot refer them to hospital for the procedure and they will have to speak with another doctor.

“Out of the six doctors in our practice, three of us object to abortion.

“I had made my mind up on abortion before entering the medical profession. I am a Roman Catholic and my religious beliefs do form my moral point of view. Personally I feel the foetus is a person and killing that foetus is wrong. I have not come up against any aggression because of my stance, either from colleagues or from patients I’ve refused to refer.

“I think people understand it is a personal choice and respect that.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/abortion-crisis-as-doctors-refuse-to-perform-surgery-444909.html

“further notes that the Holy Scriptures are entirely silent on the question of civil partnerships” Chortle.

What do posters think about this situation - should the GPs concerned be struck off?

Undoubtedly.

Seems odd that such a relatively large grouping of MPs should support an EDM now given all the other cases of conscience grievance used to justify noncompliance at school or in the workplace…

Woudn’t the best option all round for society be to just let bygones be bygones, and let employers and employees discriminate at will. Those wishing to partake of services from a certain organisation would be free to do so; those who objected to an employer’s policies would also be free to take their skills or needs elsewhere.

Ms LL’s case has caught the headlines because it features the clashing of religious and sexual rights. The saddest issue of the whole debate is that conscience and liberty are the losers. People should be free to make up their own minds on how they conduct themselves as long as they don’t bother anyone else. The fact that matters like this have to be resolved in court reflects badly on our supposedly libertarian society.

When, not so long ago, it was revealed that a Sikh police officer had forced the WMP to give him 18 months leave on full pay just to find a suitable biochem suit that accommodated his beard and turban, not a whisper was heard from the Parliament. Yet the PC involved had used a religious issue to argue for a change in WMP equipment guidelines and had charged that the WMP were guilty of ‘racial’ discrimination. Needless to say, his request was granted and the case only came to light when his search proved to be i vain and he immediately went on sick leave following his return to the regular beat.

The moment that words such as ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ appear, all hell breaks loose. Freedom of conscience and the liberty to make sensible, rational decisions seem to be abrogated.

On another more issue, Zayd bin Dafydd’s flagellation procession looks set to go ahead, to the delight of Zaydi Londoners all over the capital. Raffle tickets are selling like hot cakes as retailers flock to the cause. Don’t forget to show your support next Thursday. 10am The Island, Ilford.

Dianne Abott

Good for you (it came out a bit dry I admit)

Mrs Ben

No lets not widen the debate with whataboutery over abortion. Lets just stick to the issue of equal treatment on grounds of sexual orientation as per the subject.

ChrisC

The joy of saying i told you so has never come to me so quickly.

I feel the holy spirit moving in this. Thank you Gene Robinson for your intercession.

The bill is a disastrous suggestion. As someone notes above, it seems to compel Catholic doctors to do abortions. That’s a bad result: public servants do not lose their right not to be compelled to act against their conscience just because they’re public servants. (I should mention that I’m Catholic. FWIW.)

Mrs Ben

I personally don’t find anal intercourse to be comparable to abortion, but then i’ve only done one of those things.

Diane Abbott is a fat figure of fun and arrogant with it. A self-confessed hypocrite on the subject of her son’s private education can never be worthy of salutation even if correct on this issue. After all, Ms. Abbott may just be pretending on this one as well.

Let’s ‘widen the debate’ somewhat shall we:

Imagine a perfectly respectable looking Zaydi tribesman was walking down Eastern Ave., chewing qat and sharpening his janbiyyah. Innocently, and through no fault of his own, his protruding janbiyyah wedged in the unsightly crevice underneath Yasmin Alibhai Khan’s skirt. If Yasmin were to take this poor follower of the Unimpeachable One to court for wearing a ceremonial dagger and gaining unauthorised entry to a sacred shrine, would she be entitled on religious grounds to ask all Zaydiyah in London to venture onto the streets without their blessed steel? Ms Yasmin, as you know, is a follower of al-Baqir and whose perversions are accepted by a minority in the UK. The Zaydiyah on the other hand, who now form a sizeable religious minority in Ilford, should be entitled to the same religious freedoms as Isma’ilis and Sikhs. Shouldn’t the Zaydiyah be entitled to carry a janbiyyah even though a 7er rejects the blessed Unimpeachable One, Zayn al-’Abd-Deen’s professed tradition of goind nowhere without his dagger? Would such a poor Zaydi be entitled to an EDM brought on his behalf in such a case?

How about this:

Yasmin Alibhai Khan’s transexual Sikh bodyguard decides Ilford registry office is the place for his civil ceremony. Yasmin accompanies her bodyguard, who is wearing his dagger concealed beneath his fetching saari, to the ceremony. The cermony is already underway when she notices that, unbeknowst to her, Redbridge council have employed a Zaydi tribesman as registrar for the ceremony. Yasmin objects to the registrar’s janbiyyah on religious grounds and sues Redbridge council for compromising her Imamism by allowing a supporter of the Unimpeachable One to brazenly carry his ceremonial dagger whilst employed by the council at her bodyguard’s ceremony. She makes no objection later on that day when her friend, a deaf-mute Cree Indian carrying his ceremonial boondaka is allowed to conduct another ceremony at the same registrar’s office. Does Yasmin have a case?

Yasmin Alibhai Khan’s transexual Sikh bodyguard decides Ilford registry office is the place for his civil ceremony. Yasmin accompanies her bodyguard, who is wearing his dagger concealed beneath his fetching saari, to the ceremony. The cermony is already underway when she notices that, unbeknowst to her, Redbridge council have employed a Zaydi tribesman as registrar for the ceremony. Yasmin objects to the registrar’s janbiyyah on religious grounds and sues Redbridge council for compromising her Imamism by allowing a supporter of the Unimpeachable One to brazenly carry his ceremonial dagger whilst employed by the council at her bodyguard’s ceremony. She makes no objection later on that day when her friend, a deaf-mute Cree Indian carrying his ceremonial boondaka is allowed to conduct another ceremony at the same registrar’s office. Does Yasmin have a case?

You’re some sort of demented law lecturer testing future exam questions, and I claim my £5.

I read recently a piece from a Scottish artist (MacMillan ?) explaining why Labour has become divorced from its working class base in Scotland. In essence he complained that the old labour party that reflected socially conservative working class values and aspirations had cut itself off from it’s roots and allowed itself to become nothing more than a vessel for a highly vocal metropolitan based elite determined to push through a liberal social agenda. Seems he may have had a point. The knee jerk response of the NULab darlings Abbott and co is to immediately seek ways to circumvent a perceived threat to the elite’s social agenda and in so doing ignore or deride any claims of conscience. How I wonder would the labour stalwarts of old, whose principled conscience drew them into the fight to improve the lot of the working class, view this dismissive attitude ?

Will you join us outside the Island on Thursday Mr Goldstein? It’s sure to be a bumper day out. I understand there are other generic monotheist/ahl ul-kitab supporters prepared to stand with the Zaydiyah…perhaps you’ll join the procession along with our illustrious colleagues Rowan ‘Zayd bin Dafydd’ Williams and Nick ‘Ali bin Husayn Kahin’ Cohen? I’ve texted Yasmin, but as it would constitute direct support for janbiyyah-wearing in public and threaten her collection of Infallibles, I doubt she’ll attend. Perhaps you could write about the event on WordPress? It would seem a fitting opening page in the diary of a Hanif.

Shalom

Why should “RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN PUBLIC SERVICE” do not apply to Roman Catholic doctors refusing to treat patients for certain conditions due to their beliefs. If you don’t want to talk about abortion Mettaculture, how about the refusal by some doctors and nurses to prescribe contraception due to their religious beliefs? Or is there one law for gay men and another for straight women when it comes to these things?

Mrs Ben

Diane Abbott is a traitor to her own cause. The Employment and Equality (Religion and Belief) act of 2003 is a piece of leglislation framed by the political party of which she both was then and is now an MP and which she voteed onto the statute. It is of a piece with much other Labout leglislation over the past decade, as it defines the offence as being the opinion of the victim, the intent being to greatly facilitate such legal action. In this case the judgement is win-win: Ladele gets a nice payout; the lawyers have a nice pay-day, the leglislation is strengthened by this precident making likely more of the same. The couple concerned got married anyway, albeit by someone else. So no-one loses. So why is she moving against judgements brought about about, essentially, by the ethos of her own avowed political movement? I cannot imagine anything that is more against everything that Labour stands for. Other than, perhaps, sending her kid to a £10k per year private school. She is a disgrace to the Labour movement.

Martin C, well the words hoist, own, and petard come to mind.

Mrs. Ben, medical staff are given a specific exemption from being involved in abortion (on ethical, not religious, grounds) so it’s not directly comparable. In practice, if this exemption were not granted, a very large number of people would leave the NHS, so it makes sense to grant the exemption.

Mrs Ben

I have no intention of debating your whatabouteries when you claim that a comparison may not be fairly made between discrimination on grounds of race with discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in Employment legislation;

when both the context, language an applicable legal tests and case law are precisely comparable.

I do wonder though about your immediate reach for abortion as a comparator to homosexual civil partnership when you seek to consider other grounds on which a person might be expected to have a strong christian religious objection.

You now come up with contraception.

Surely that is a bit weak? Wouldn’t paedophilia or cannabilism be better comparators?

What is fascinating is that you are blind to the entirely different contexts of your examples in relation to discrimination law in employment and the prohibition of less favourable treatment on the grounds of sex, race, disability, religion and sexual orientation.

As we have been discussing a particular case of Employment law in which protection in one area of anti-discrimination law was given at the expense of disregarding the equal rights of another group protected from unlawful discrimintion.

As one set of ‘rights’ has been given a legal sanction to trump another co-equal set of rights and a legal ruling has been handed down stating that in order to provide employment protection to one group they are compelled to discriminate against another, any comparison between any of the five protected grounds, race, disability etc is perfectly logical, right and proper.

The only thing that links abortion and homosexual civil partnerships is the processes of your mind where they must sit in some residual category of unpleasant, distasteful, objectionable or religiously abhorrent and unconscionable acts.

The Headline here specifically says “Religious Beliefs in Public Service” not “Religious Beliefs in Public Service as they affect affect gays who want to enter into civil partnerships”.

A doctor’s religious beliefs might well cause him or her to discriminate against many women who want abortions or need contraceptive advice. Except of course such cases do not affect gay men and therefore do not interest you. I imagine straight women have less rights in your mind (including the right not to be discriminated against by public servants on religious grounds) than gay men.

Your comments that female lawyers called Miss were statistically very young or spinsterish and pre-feminist female lawyers says it all really. You clearly dislike women. That’s OK because I dislike men like you, regardless of your sexual orientation.

Sean - in the example I quoted the Roman Catholic doctor specifically said that he did not give advice on abortion on religious grounds. He did not hide behind a smokescreen that it was on ethical grounds. (I am an ethical person, I think but I am not a Roman Catholic).

iYou are basically saying RC doctors are given the freedom to follow their church’s teachings on this subject while pretending it is on ethical grounds because otherwise there would not be enough doctors. So it’s really an economic argument then.

She’s - Diane’s- right but I’m also concerned about Sikhs with crash helmet exemptions, various uniformed folks getting special treatment for religious attire and religious sensibilities getting privileges not extended to or available to the rest of us for secular reasons.

And how many MPs have signed this oh, so significant, motion?

Mrs Ben,

I’ve responded to th abortion analogy at least three times on the other thread, but in case you didn’t see it….

I and I think most others would find acceptable private arrangements between an employer and employee that meant personal/political/religious/whatever objections were accommodated, so long as there was no cost to the public in terms of the service they receive. So an anti-abortion practice doctor who ensures his patient can see an alternative GP in order to get an abortion referral, or a council that arranges work schedules so registrars objecting to civil partnerships don’t have to officiate at them, again at no inconveniece to the public, are not big deals (I’ll leave to one side the point that the latter could, in my view, amount to a dispensation to discriminate). However, the judgment in the Ladele case was not that an employer and employe have a right to find an accommodation; rather, the tribunal found that a failure to accede to Ladele’s request amounted to indirect religious discrimination. In other words, the council was COMPELLED to grant the dispensation sought by the employee.

If upheld and established as precedent, this means the employee no longer has to seek an accoomodation of her/his views; s/he merely needs to object and the employer is compelled to accommodate her/him.

It ought not be required to point out why this is a bad thing.

Mrs. Ben, No an atheist doctor who objects to abortion is not obliged to involve himself in the provision of abortion services.

Mrs Ben

Your being very silly.

Please don’t misrepresent or misquote my words when they are there for anyone to read, it doesn’t reflect well on you.

I stated that the unfortunate, obvious and perfectly forseeable consequence of granting an exceptionalism to equality legislation on the grounds of a purported Christian moral objection would be to open a Pandora’s box, whereby all manner of public duties that had hithertoo never been open to such a matter of ‘conscience’ being treated as a right.

In fact I first mentioned the possbility of a pharmacist claiming religious exemption from dispensing contraceptive medication.

The point of the Islington ruling, as you singularly insist on failing to see, is that not only is a religious exception granted on purportedly moral grounds, but that it is the first and most controversial legal ruling in this area with a potentially far reaching and negative impact.

The unacceptabble thing for anyone remotely concerned with equality is not that an accomodation might be reached for ‘conscientious objectors’ in performing certain duties, but that this judgement is determined by the necessity (in its view) of discriminating against lesbian and gay men in the provision of a service which they are entitled to by law and which the claimant’s duties were required by law to provide.

The same service which the employers, Islington Council were legally bound to provide and further were legally bound by a positive obligation not only to enforce equal treatment across the board but to proactively enact policies that prevent unlawful discrimination.

That you refuse to grasp this fact and insist upon seeing this as solely a matter of religious conscience, the expression of which caused the claimant to be unlawfully victimised, says everything about you and very little about the floodgates that could be opened.

This fact has been rapidly grasped by some parliamentarians.

For anyone remotely concerned about such a state of affairs and the paralysis and dysfunction upon public service provision (and the drain on the public purse caused by inevitable vexatious litigation) that could easily ensue , the obvious thing to do would have been to uphold the principle of non-discrimination equally on all grounds and the necessity of a non-hierachy of rights.

To instead blame the very group that is discriminated against by this judgement and further to attack personally anyone who protests angainst the obvious injustice and inequality of it, can only been seen as discriminatory and less favourable treatment towards the group, who happen to be lesbian and gay men, most directly and adversely effected by this judgement.

The partiality of your arguments and your insistence of placing as central to your critique the character of some homosexuals and the ‘moral’ nature of homosexuality (as alleged by the client) is nothing if not prejudicial.

The population size of a group protected by anti-discrimination legislation is not the reason for anti-discrimination legislation but in the United Kingdom there are fewer commited and practising Christians (as measured by regular church attendance) than there are committed and practising homosexuals.

Your failure to express a simple solidarity and support for general equality and anti-disctimination legislation is perfectly correctly, and impersonally, criticisable on a political blog dedicated to social justice and democracy.

But like all such inconsistent equality ‘yes but’ arguments you may be surprised to one day find yoursself the victim of your own tolerance of such moral exceptionalism.

Contrary to your rididiculous assertions, I am implaccably opposed to sex discrimination whatever its source.

I would not presume to assume that you have or would use contraception but the majority of women in this country not of the Catholic faith (and many who are) do.

It is surely easy for you to see how your support for, not only Ladelle but, the wide ranging principle of religious moral exceptionalism (as a compelling and compellable right) could (and surely will be) used to deny women the social rights and legal entitlements that have been historicaly hard won, against the almost universal resistance and moral condemnation of conservative religious traditions.

And you accuse me of mysogeny?

Shame on you!

By your determination to see Ladelle as the victim (not least of bullying by the ‘gays) and your determination to privilege her religous faith and grant her seperate and superior ‘rights ‘over and above those provided for by equal treatment legislation based on a principle of universal equality ;

you place yourself in the, enlightenment ditching, company of the ex-femminists who so determined are they to resist Imperialism and to privilige the rights of ‘oppressed’ religious and ethnic minorities over and above universal rights and equality that they end up supporting the enforcement of the subordination of women inherent in Sharia as a minority ethnic and religious right.

I would have thought this outcome was perfectly forseeable by any thoughtful person, no matter what their personal moral, social and political, objections to civil partnership.

At Harry’s Place, this point has been understood by people so diametrically opposed in their views as John.P who is gay and totally opposed to civil partnership, and Nick SA, who is heterosexual and has considered objections to gay marriage and adoption and finds the idea of buggery as repulsive as Morriss dancing and cheese and olives for breakfast!

I care not at all who you like or dislike, this is a political blog and I place the discussion of political positions (whether they belong to individuals or are shared) as being of greater import.

Obviously your own sense of your self as being a social liberal is insulated beyond any capacity for genuine introspection.

Nontheless I have made my arguments as precisely and clearly as iIcan.

I leave it to the judgement of others to consider whether or not they find your views are actually of a far more conservative and reactionary nature than your online persona claims.

Your being very silly….

you place yourself in the, enlightenment ditching

Metta, given your obvious intellectual superiority (well it’s not exactly obvious but you imply it every time you compose one of your over-long posts), would you kindly bless us lesser mortals by using English as your language next time?

What on earth is happening to these labour women? There seems to be an outbreak of common sense. This can be a very dangerous affliction for professionally stupid people like her.

Perhaps she should be hosed down, and rolled in sawdust.

Gordon Neil:
I read recently a piece from a Scottish artist (MacMillan ?) explaining why Labour has become divorced from its working class base in Scotland. In essence he complained that the old labour party that reflected socially conservative working class values and aspirations had cut itself off from it’s roots and allowed itself to become nothing more than a vessel for a highly vocal metropolitan based elite determined to push through a liberal social agenda.

What utter bollocks. The last time the Labour Party had any socially conservative policies, it barely had two Scottish MPs to rub together. And these socially conservative “values” are not rooted in the working class, they are and always have been the nostrums of a highly vocal conservative elite.

I will break a habit of a lifetime and say “bloody well done!” to Diane Abbott.

“The knee jerk response of the NULab darlings Abbott and co is to immediately seek ways to circumvent a perceived threat to the elite’s social agenda and in so doing ignore or deride any claims of conscience. How I wonder would the labour stalwarts of old, whose principled conscience drew them into the fight to improve the lot of the working class, view this dismissive attitude?”

Labour stalwarts of old would have been extremely respectful of the long established organised working class tradition of solidarity - that is, within the Union/party/state you can disagree as much as you like, but you present a unified face to the bosses.

They would fully understand what Diane Abbot is doing, because the fear would be if you institutionalise the right to dissent on conscience, some scabbing numpty would invoke that to cross a picket line. Or, say, form a national government with the Tories.

Old Labour stalwarts, socially conservative or not, had/have a strong collectivist streak - much stronger than their modern Labour counterparts - which you should know if you have actually ever met such people, rather than simply read some unheard of Scottish artist’s ramblings on the topic.

It might just be worth the effort to elucidate the background once again but probably not.

The Law was changed after this Registrar took up her post. Had the Law been enacted before she was appointed her disinclination to officiate would be perverse; she knew what she would be required to do as part of her duties. Picking and choosing on any grounds would need to be seen in the light of her professed desire to under take the work. She had a choice. As the Law was enacted after her appointment she had no prior warning. The basis of her Employment Tribunal appeal was, however, on grounds of harassment at the hands of her employers following on from her ethical objection and the tribunal upheld her claim.

I am an Anglican who supports civil unions, gay and lesbian clergy. “Those whom God has brought together let no [one] put asunder”.

ChrisC

ooooh quite a bitch queen for a homophobe aren’t we.

Add your own hyphen.

And as for length (size queen too?).

Well if we add up the words of your continuous, drip, drip posts compared to my fewer but lengthier posts, I think you’ll find that your words add up to more but mean rather less.

In all fairness ChrisC if I thought your real concern was one for an employee against an overbearing employer in the case of ladelle, I would give your arguments more credence but you have ‘previous’ so I don’t.

Now you can choose to see my comments on this as pure ego inflated opinion if you wish.

Now in common with, perhaps most, Lawyers my ego is rather larger than strictly necessary.

But it is a sense of self that allows us to comment here.

it is perfectly predictable that as I disagree with your opinion you would react to my comments as being mere pomposity by a person with an overinflated opinion of themselves.

On the other hand you have a choice to see the closely argued comments I have given with a freely given summary of the Law of Discrimination in Employment not as a tom cat spraying but as a democratic understanding that the law though often mystified is not that hrd when laid out in a way that enable ones opinions about a case to be measured against the way the law works.

When I have state; it is my opinion, ‘i think’ ‘it is arguable’ etc; these are not statements of narcisistic ppomposity but merely conventions to show that when I make an argument that is less than certain I shoud honestly state so.

The reason for this is that while a lot of the law is settled and certain, we have an adversarial system where two advocates argue and one side wins (actually strictly in Employment law it is the tribunal that determines unlike the rest of the law hence my criticisms of their judgment in this case as it not a precedent or a binding finding at all).

For your information I started doing tribunal work as a relief from the morally eroding nature of the criminal law.

I built a practice largely Pro bono before receiving union funding. I have only ever represented claimants not employers ( Iam a socialist you see).

In cases like this it is more troubling the employer is also local government and is generally a pretty good employer and damages they pay must come from the public purse that funds other services from a limited budget.

That does not mean that such bodies can not be terrible employers and I have taken a few cases against the NHS and Local Authorities.

I do realise that such institutions have a horrible habit (being so litigation averse) of attemting to cover up a bad situation or failing to own up to mistakes thus compounding the situation so that an employee can be treated horribly just becaue instittutions wont admit to errors.

On the other hand I have lon been worried about how harsh Tribunals often are towards local government while being outrageously leninet to private employers.

Really in cases of abuses of procedure failure to consult, unilateral contract changes, etc these claims are usually dismissed or if you win on the point there are no damages as the argument is if the employee affirmed the new contract by working they had no financial loss.

There is a tendancy for the business rep on the tribunal to be particularly harsh towards a Council (as well as the TU person) and I have witnessed mmany example (replete with smirks) where the tribunal chair is engaging in ‘malicious compliance’

I.E. where they think there is a potential conflict of laws (especially if they think it is bad law) and no or little case law, they may make a finding of compliance with a new law intentionally to create a major problem for the higher courts or the government to solve (in the abscence of case law even if the ruling seems off if it could be held to mean what the ruling claims then there is little sanction).

Now I hope I have given enough background on the law for those who are interested (the Legal Action Group books are very good for advisers as are the ACAS guides).

This really is a tremendouly important case for its potentially adverse effects.

Yes i find it worrying that people who should see this can’t seem to see past what they see as a marginal issue of who will conduct civil partnerships (as long as someone will do it).

I do think that a contributing factor must be the lesser value in a hierachy of rights that some people are prepared to grant to homosexuals than to religious believers.

The case has a far wider significance than that and though tthis case has been supported by the Christian Insttitute if you lool online at the agenda of such groups as the Muslim Lawyers association you will see that such a law is part of a legal strategy to advance the concerns of and protection for their faith against a secular legal system.

One of the very first cases under this law is already turning out to be of the kind that the strongest critics of such religous protection legislation feared.

Surely you realise that a political agenda to begin to enforce a religiously normative world view would be to target the socially more marginal and morally ambiguous (as seen by mainstream society) targets first?

The Ministry of Truth blog has come up with something very interestig.

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/07/17/ladele-v-islington/

It seems, one of the Tribunal members worked for the Catholic Church.

Oh! the outrage! The horrors! The infamy!

In Harry’s Place Word, it is quite clear that anyone with a connection with (or even affection for) to the (dread!) Catholic Church should of course be excluded from society and it made absolutely clear to them (by a lengthy and brutal process of re-education so that they think like the writer of this piece) that their conscience and morality must not impact upon the way they live their life or their relations with wider society in any way.

Or you could just cut this Stalinist bullshit. I will pray for your conversion.

Or you could just cut this Stalinist bullshit. I will pray for your conversion.

Yeah? And how many divisions of whinging fantasists like you does the Pope have?

Brownie

I understand your point and I think we probably agree. But Mettaculture seems to be arguing, if I can follow his arguments, that no such accommodation as you and I might think appropriate should be permitted and in this case that all registrars should be compelled to marry everyone who applies or else not do the job. This is because refusing to marry gays in civil partnerships is discriminating against them.

Sean

You say that exemption from carrying out abortions is on ethical grounds for doctors and therefore not religious. There may well be atheist doctors who object to carrying out abortions on ethical grounds but many Roman Catholic doctors and nurses do not dissemble - they actually state that they will not perform abortions or give contraceptive advice because it is contrary to the teachings of their church and their religion. It might just work as an argument for abortions but I don’t see how it can be sustained for contraceptive advice. Claiming it is on ethical grounds is just a convenient fudge to get around employing them.

Mettaculture

You do get hold of the wrong end of the stick don’t you? I don’t support “religious exceptionalism” or sharia law at all and I am not fan of Roman Catholicism in fact I am rather opposed to it.

I was merely pointing out that if you think everyone in public service should be legally obliged to provide the services they are paid to deliver,to everyone who seeks those services whether marriage ceremonies or medical advice on birth control, the logically, allowing some NHS staff to opt out of some kinds of treatment, should also be challenged.

Shouldn’t I be able to insist that my Roman Catholic doctor (if I have one) gives me contraceptive advice regardless of his religious beliefs?

You aren’t interested in this because you are a gay man. But the failure to obtain contraceptive treatment is a very big problem in countries and indeed communities where what might be called “fundamentalist” catholicism flourishes.

“Shouldn’t I be able to insist that my Roman Catholic doctor (if I have one) gives me contraceptive advice regardless of his religious beliefs?

You aren’t interested in this because you are a gay man. But the failure to obtain contraceptive treatment is a very big problem in countries and indeed communities where what might be called “fundamentalist” catholicism flourishes.”

Do you not see, Mrs Ben, that the rulling in the Ladelle case is part of a programme to consolidate these religious excemptions, not undermine them. This ruling has made it twice as hard to dismantle the religious privelege granted to Catholic doctors. Indeed the judgement was sought in order to begin to create the precedents to entrench and extend such privelege. You ask:

“Shouldn’t I be able to insist that my Roman Catholic doctor (if I have one) gives me contraceptive advice regardless of his religious beliefs?”

The answer is OF COURSE! If a doctor is employed by the NHS then their duty is to the public. If they have religious taboos which prevent them offering the full range of services to the public without exception, they should set up a private practice aimed at other Cathlics or seek employment at a Catholic-owned clinic.

Just wanted to say hi, thanks and bye

Brett

No Mrs Ben doesn’t see that at all, not in the slightest, which is why she has not understood a single thing I have said.

She thinks that my arguments are because I am a gay man and I am a gay man becuase I oppose the religious exceptionalism that is inherent in this judgement.

Despite the fact that many commentators have grasped this central fact, the central fact, to this debate independently of their sexual orientation, Mrs Ben persists in her (what she is incapable of seeing as homophobic views).

You started off as the ‘vituperative, spiteful, shrill’ and ‘hysterical’ gay man but she has decided that I am a worse gay man than you, because I ‘obviously dislike women’.

Yes I am mentally unstable and woman hater apparently, note how she contrasts ‘women’ to ‘gay men’).

She has spewed out just about every negative stereotype or trope about homosexual men in the book.

In fact ‘woman hater’ is an iconic homophobic trope (almost like the blood libel in anti-semitic discourse).

One of the oldest homophobic representations in the Englis language is a woodcut print ‘the woman haters lament’ (see Homosexuality in Rennaisance England by Alan Bray).

I’m quite disappointed that she didn’t call me a ‘molly’.