Faith
Under Fire...
UK: Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says
British Government
Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly
at work, the UK Government is to argue in a landmark court case.
The Government has refused to say that Christians have a right to
display the symbol of their faith at work
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
9:00PM GMT 10 Mar 2012
The Telegraph UK
In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the
European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will
seek to establish their right to display the cross.
It is the first time that the Government has been forced to state
whether it backs the right of Christians to wear the symbol at
work.
A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that ministers
will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian
faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers
who insist on doing so.
The Government’s position received an angry response last night
from prominent figures including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop
of Canterbury.
He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians
and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined
in official life.
The Government’s refusal to say that Christians have a right to
display the symbol of their faith at work emerged after its plans
to legalise same-sex marriages were attacked by the leaders of the
Roman Catholic Church in Britain.
A poll commissioned by The Sunday Telegraph shows that the country
is split on the issue.
Overall, 45 per cent of voters support moves to allow gay
marriage, with 36 per cent against, while 19 per cent say they do
not know.
However, the Prime Minister is out of step with his own party.
Exactly half of Conservative voters oppose same-sex marriage in
principle and only 35 per cent back it.
There is no public appetite to change the law urgently, with more
than three quarters of people polled saying it was wrong to
fast-track the plan before 2015 and only 14 per cent saying it was
right.
The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect
the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of
the European Convention on Human Rights.
It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his
religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or
belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”
The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley
Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their
employers barred them from wearing the symbols.
They want the European Court to rule that this breached their
human right to manifest their religion.
The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross
is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall
under the remit of Article 9.
Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the
bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things
that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are
therefore protected by human rights.
They say that Christians are given less protection than members of
other religions who have been granted special status for garments
or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the
Muslim hijab.
Last year it emerged that Mrs Eweida, a British Airways worker,
and Mrs Chaplin, a nurse, had taken their fight to the European
Court in Strasbourg after both faced disciplinary action for
wearing a cross at work.
Mrs Eweida’s case dates from 2006 when she was suspended for
refusing to take off the cross which her employers claimed
breached BA’s uniform code.
The 61 year-old, from Twickenham, is a Coptic Christian who argued
that BA allowed members of other faiths to wear religious garments
and symbols.
BA later changed its uniform policy but Mrs Eweida lost her
challenge against an earlier employment tribunal decision at the
Court of Appeal and in May 2010 was refused permission to go to
the Supreme Court.
Mrs Chaplin, 56, from Exeter, was barred from working on wards by
Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust after she refused to hide the
cross she wore on a necklace chain, ending 31 years of nursing.
The Government claims the two women’s application to the
Strasbourg court is “manifestly ill-founded”.
Its response states: “The Government submit that… the applicants’
wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of
their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the
restriction on the applicants' wearing of a visible cross or
crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by
Article 9.”
The response, prepared by the Foreign Office, adds: “In neither
case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross
or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the
Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the
applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”
The Government has also set out its intention to oppose cases
brought by two other Christians, including a former registrar who
objected to conducting civil partnership ceremonies for homosexual
couples.
Lillian Ladele, who worked as a registrar for Islington council in
north London for 17 years, said she was forced to resign in 2007
after being disciplined, and claimed she had been harassed over
her beliefs.
Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor, was sacked by Relate
for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.
Christian groups described the Government’s stance as
“extraordinary”.
Lord Carey said: “The reasoning is based on a wholly inappropriate
judgment of matters of theology and worship about which they can
claim no expertise.
“The irony is that when governments and courts dictate to
Christians that the cross is a matter of insignificance, it
becomes an even more important symbol and expression of our
faith.”
The Strasbourg cases brought by Mrs Chaplin and Mr McFarlane are
supported by the Christian Legal Centre which has instructed Paul
Diamond, a leading human rights barrister.
Judges in Strasbourg will next decide whether all four cases will
progress to full hearings.
If they proceed, the cases will test how religious rights are
balanced against equality laws designed to prohibit
discrimination.
Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre, said:
“It is extraordinary that a Conservative government should argue
that the wearing of a cross is not a generally recognised practice
of the Christian faith.
“In recent months the courts have refused to recognise the wearing
of a cross, belief in marriage between a man and a woman and
Sundays as a day of worship as ‘core’ expressions of the Christian
faith.
"What next? Will our courts overrule the Ten Commandments?”
Growing anger among Christians will be highlighted today by Delia
Smith, the television chef and practising Roman Catholic, who will
issue a Lent appeal on behalf the Church’s charity, Cafod,
accusing “militant neo-atheists and devout secularists” of
“busting a gut to drive us off the radar and try to convince us
that we hardly exist”.
ICM Research interviewed an online sample of 2,001 adults between
March 7 and March 9. Interviews were conducted across the country
and results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.