Faith in the Workplace - Equality and Human Rights Commission Survey

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has an open consulation on religion and belief in the workplace:

Has your religion or belief, or that of other people, affected your experiences in the workplace or the services you receive as part of your daily life? Or perhaps they impact on you as an employer or manager?  If so, we want to hear from you, whether your experiences are good or bad.

We want to gather as much information as we can from employees, service users, employers, service providers, trade unions, legal advisors and religion or belief groups so that we can assess how a person’s religion or belief, or lack of it, is taken into account at work and when using services.

This major call for evidence is part of our three year programme to strengthen understanding of religion or belief in public life, to improve knowledge of what happens in practice and to make sure that the laws which are in place to protect everyone’s right to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect are effective.

It runs until 31st October, and the evidence given will shape how the EHRC addresses issue of faith and human rights in the future, and assessment of how the current human rights framework works. (Not sure if that includes recent Conservative policy announcements!) The consultation includes questions about whether more or less legal protection should be given to people who hold religious beliefs. That could be a bit of a blunt instrument: I'd be keener to see more power for Christians to opt out of Sunday working in non-essential services than for Muslim nurses to wear a burka at work.

The consultation relates both to employees, and people receiving services. This is an opportunity to inform the way faith is taken into account in the public sphere and policy making, so please consider taking part.

Disappearing up our own selfie

What with the woman who married herself, and Stephen Fry declaring that his drug use affected nobody but himself, the first week of October 2014 may mark the point at which our culture disappeared up its own selfie in pursuit of individualistic self-love.



I'm preaching in the morning on the 60 or so 'one another' sayings in the New Testament, and struggling with the limitations of the English language. So much of it is written to 'you' - which, reading the Bible on my own, in my own room, in my own time, in my own way, naturally must be the singular form. Not so. As the Texan Bible reveals, most of it is written to 'Y'all', the plural 'you', it is instructions to a community, to be read, understood and applied in community.

Maybe this is why we talk about rights so much, because we no longer think relationally. A right is something owed to an individual, and is regulated by law. We need them, but for normal personal relationships to be conducted on this basis shows that those relationships have broken down. To the early church, resorting to law to settle issues was a serious failure, because the gold standard was to sort things out in relationship.

Among church members now, most of our lives are lived apart from one another, so it's naturally to think individualistically when applying the Bible to our lives, in contrast with the communal spirit of Acts 2 (daily meeting together, eating, learning and sharing life). So both our culture, and the structure of our lives, make it hard to hear the Bible saying what it is really saying.

What happens when a selfie culture reads an ussie Bible?

Euro Court judgement - reading the small print

Interesting commentary on the European court judgement in the inbox today from the Christian Legal Centre:

Steps Forward

The Court held that Nadia Eweida's 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' had been infringed by British Airways' decision to prevent her from wearing her cross visibly.

In the other cases, the European Court decided that decisions of the UK Courts were within the 'margin of appreciation' (discretion) that it allows to national Courts - but in so doing it challenged many of the principles adopted by UK Courts and asserted by the British government.

• So for example, the UK Government had made the remarkable assertion that the cross was not a generally recognised Christian symbol. It also suggested that since wearing the cross is not compulsory for Christians, it is not a protected freedom. The European Court ruled that, in principle, wearing the cross is an expression of Christian faith and so is a freedom to be protected!

• Again, the UK Courts had held that beliefs about marriage as between a man and a woman was not a core component of Christian belief and so not protected. The European Court said that these beliefs were part of Gary and Lillian's Christian identity and so were in principle protected!

• The British Government suggested that because the individuals were free to resign and find other jobs, there had been no infringement of their freedom of religion - in other words, 'your freedom to resign secures your freedom of religion'. The European Court ruled that 'freedom to resign and find another job' is not sufficient to guarantee religious freedom.

These are significant breakthroughs and will be a great help in contending for Christian freedoms in the UK Courts in the future.

Further to Go

However, it was very disappointing that in Shirley, Lillian and Gary's case, the Court ruled that, although their religious freedom had been infringed, the circumstances had justified that interference.

In Shirley's case, 'Health and Safety' was given as the justification. The European Court said that it was not in a position to examine the application of the Health and Safety policy. It had to assume that it was justified, as the UK Courts had suggested. However, no credible Health and Safety risk was ever demonstrated by the hospital.

In the case of Lillian and Gary, the European Court said that it was necessary to restrict their freedom in order to protect the freedom of others.

However, in both cases, it would have been possible to accommodate Gary and Lillian's conscience, without there being any danger of anyone being denied a service. This important point will continue to be made.  

In what's now effectively a secular democracy, it's not surprising that 'religious' rights move a bit further down the pecking order. There seems to be such a diversity of views about marriage around at the moment that I'm  not sure how long the traditional view will be seen as a 'core component' of Christian belief.

We have to continue to try to strike the tricky balance between not being doormats ('turning the other cheek' meant refusing to be treated as a slave or an inferior, if someone struck you on the right cheek it would be a backhanded slap, an insult. Turning the left cheek meant 'at least hit me as an equal', it was an act of non-violent defiance) and not being bolshie. Mind you, I'd still rather live under this regime than in just about any Muslim country you care to name. Egypt? Indonesia? Iran? Quite a lot of other places? I'm hoping there are some good examples to the contrary but can't think of many, and it's bad news for converts from Islam pretty much everywhere. If we want to stick up for the persecuted, there are still far too many global candidates that put the cases above into stark perspective. And it seems to be getting worse, not better.

Where's Woolas?

A number of us have been trying to contact Phil Woolas to ask for the deportation of Elizabeth Kiwunga Rushamba to Uganda (due tomorrow) to be halted. Background here, this weeks events here, here and here.

Given the timescale, sending letters is out of the question, but now emails are getting this automated response:

"Thank you for sending an email to Phil Woolas, Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth.

Due to the volume of email we are receiving, we can no longer accept casework electronicially. Please write to Phil at: Lord Chambers 11 Church Lane Oldham OL1 3AN

If your query is urgent, please telephone our constituency office on 0161 624 4248.

If your correspondence relates to the Home Office, please forward your correspondence to:
Home Office Direct Communications Unit 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF

With all best wishes and many thanks for your understanding in this matter.
Office of Phil Woolas MP Oldham East and Saddleworth"

You'll notice that the Home Office contact is a surface mail address. There is an email ( mailto:public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk) on the Home Office contacts page next to this address, but it also informs you that We aim to answer your enquiry - whether by email or letter - within 20 working days. That's not very helpful, as we're only working in a timescale of 24-48 hours here. Elizabeth was taken by border control officials on Monday.

Ok, we'll phone on that constituency number. Except that
"House of Commons rules mean that Phil can only deal with enquiries from people who live in Oldham East and Saddleworth." (says his website). So if you ring the number to plead Elizabeth's case but don't live in the area, it's against the rules for Phil Woolas to do anything about it.

I can understand that government ministers don't want to be deluged with email just because it's easy to fire one off, and some bods on the internet have put a campaign together. But the net effect of all this is that there's no way for the general public to get in touch with Phil Woolas within the necessary time-frame. In 20 days time Elizabeth could be in a Ugandan jail and her infant children taken from her and put in an orphanage. A sympathetic letter from the Home Office will be worse than useless by then.

Update: Just got this:

Hi folks, Just a plea for everyone to write first class to Phil Woolas today - as you may have already read, they are not accepting emails.

Rt Hon Phil Woolas Home Office Direct Communications Unit 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF

So, don't forget to include Elizabeth's HO Ref: 1147269/5

please remind Phil Woolas that Elizabeth was only following his suggestion of the 6th August to gather medical reports and more information but weren't given the time to do it.

you could mention the manner in which Elizabeth and the children were taken and the bullying tactics of the Immigration Officials. They said, in front of the children, 'if you don't come quietly Elizabeth, we'll handcuff you and carry you down the stairs'. They also put E and the children in separate vehicles.

Don't forget to send a copy to Alan Milburn (you can do that by email) Elizabeth's flight is booked for 8pm tomorrow night. In the meantime, we are hopeful that we have found a solicitor.

Please contact Alan Johnson

Update: story in the Northern Echo today, worth a read.

Elizabeth Kiwunga Rushamba, whose case I mentioned yesterday, is now in Yarlswood detention centre, and scheduled for deportation back to Uganda tomorrow. I recieved the following update last night:

"We have heard that Elizabeth is in the Yarl's Wood Detention Centre and they are looking at deporting her on Thursday. If you haven't e-mailed the govt please do so - this really is our last chance. There have been riots in Uganda recently where members of the opposing parties have been rounded up and imprisoned. Elizabeth is likely to be arrested immediatley on her return, especially as a failed ayslum seeker. Please write, telephone and do something."

Elizabeth is connected with the opposition parties in Uganda, where she has spoken out about human rights abuses, and there is medical evidence that she was badly maltreated whilst in Uganda before. She has two small children (3 years and 6 months), who were separated from her when the British border officials took her from her home yesterday morning. This has happened before, and her treatment by the authorities in the UK has been inhumane. Her local MP, MEP, and CofE bishops have all called for her to be allowed to stay here. The authorities have ignored all of these pleas.

Here is one official report on human rights in Uganda
U.S.A: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Uganda 2006
The government's human rights record remained poor: violence and discrimination against women; female genital mutilation (FGM); violence and abuse of children, particularly sexual abuse; trafficking in persons; unlawful killings by security forces; disappearances; security forces use of torture and abuse of suspects; vigilante justice; harsh prison conditions; official impunity; arbitrary arrest; incommunicado and lengthy pretrial detention; restrictions on the right to a fair trial and on freedoms of speech, the press, and association; limited freedom of religion; abuse of internally displaced persons (IDPs); restrictions on opposition parties; electoral violence and irregularities; government corruption; violence and discrimination against persons with disabilities; forced labor, including by children; and child labor.

to repeat the contact details from yesterdays post:

Please contact Alan Johnson (Home Secretary) and Alan Milburn (local MP for Darlington) to complain about this treatment of a peaceful woman and her family and ask they release her immediately - and review her case favourably - this really is last chance saloon, because if she is returned to Uganda she is likely to be imprisoned and the children placed in an orphanage.

So I ask you again to take a few minutes out of your day to make a stand on her behalf
Alan Milburn - alanmilburnmp@googlemail.com or call 01325 380366
Alan Johnson - public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk and/or johnsona@parliament.uk and/or windlet@parliament.uk or 020 7035 484

Please.