header-logo header-logo

Freedom of religion

13 September 2012 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7529 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

HLE blogger James Wilson examines the controversy surrounding religion in the workplace

"The American humourist PJ O’Rourke once said that it was funny how those who wanted to share their religious views with you never wanted you to share yours with them. The European Court of Human Rights is about to share its views with all of us: this week it is hearing four cases on religion and the law.

All four applicants are practising Christians who complain that UK law did not sufficiently protect their rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination at work. Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee, and Shirley Chaplin, a geriatrics nurse, complain that their employers placed restrictions on their visibly wearing Christian crosses while at work. Lilian Ladele, a registrar of births, deaths and marriages, and Gary McFarlane, a Relate counsellor, complain about their dismissal for refusing to carry out certain of their duties which they considered would condone homosexuality.

One might be forgiven for thinking that the symbols cases were a relatively trivial matter. Almost no-one would be offended by someone wearing a cross.

The answer, however, is that we are back in the realms of legal principle, and while the crosses might well be seen as harmless symbols that merely reflect a mainstream faith, if they are permitted as a legitimate departure from the employer’s otherwise secular uniform policy, someone could turn up wanting to wear something offensive and citing religious grounds for doing so.

One possible response is that relatively inoffensive symbols should be permitted, but not ones that are blatantly offensive.

There are several problems with the court trying to decide what is offensive and what is reasonable. Is it to be judged from the perspective of the victim, the perpetrator or a neutral observer?...”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Issue: 7529 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll