Imperial Party forum

thomas davison

Christians 'must choose between job or their faith': Government lawyers claim at European court
�Claims that four Christians were refused the right to express beliefs at work to be rejected
�Those who disobey employers should 'go and find another job'
�Hard line means that Government doesn't support right to wear a cross at work
By Steve Doughty In Strasbourg
PUBLISHED: 17:39, 4 September 2012 | UPDATED: 08:33, 5 September 2012

..Christians may have to sacrifice their jobs if they want to express their religion at work, government lawyers declared yesterday.
They urged human rights judges in Strasbourg to reject a landmark case brought by four Christians who said they suffered faith-based discrimination.

The state lawyers insisted workers are not entitled to wear a crucifix at work against the wishes of their employers � and if that is incompatible with their faith they �are free to resign�.
Scroll down for video

Britain's Nadia Eweida waits for the beginning of the hearing on her case with three other British nationals at the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg yesterday
The hard line contrasts starkly with David Cameron telling the Commons in July that the right to wear the cross at work was �an absolutely vital freedom�.
He even pledged to change the law to �make clear that people can wear religious symbols at work.�
More...�'I'm proud of my cross but Christianity is becoming a dirty word in this country', says electrician threatened with the sack for displaying crucifix
�Christian fightback: Equality watchdogs take on Cameron and back the right to wear cross at work
�Carey blasts Cameron for going back on his promise as UK fights for a ban on crosses at work

Last night the Government�s handling of the case was attacked by Christians for its �astonishing double standards�.
Government lawyers said the wearing of the crucifix was not a �scriptural requirement� of Christianity, so employers had no obligation to recognise it.
Enlarge Nadia Eweida sits besides Bishop Athanasios Canepa, as she waits for the beginning of the hearing
But in a confrontation at the court yesterday, the Christians� counsel said it was wrong they should have fewer rights than other faith groups just because they had a �tolerant� religion.
The hearing at the European Court of Human Rights involved four test cases, two of which involve employees prevented from wearing a cross at work. Nadia Eweida�s row with British Airways led the airline to back down in 2006 and Shirley Chaplin who � after 30 years as a nurse � was told she could no longer wear her cross on duty for health and safety reasons.
Enlarge Enlarge Former Islington registrar Lilian Ladele, left, who was sacked after declining to conduct civil partnerships, and Shirley Chaplin, a nurse of 30 years who was told that she could no longer wear her cross to work, were also involved in yesterday's case in Strasbourg

The other two cases are those of Lilian Ladele, who was sacked as a registrar by Islington council because she declined to conduct civil partnerships and Gary McFarlane, a Relate counsellor who lost his job in Bristol after admitting to bosses that he felt unable to give sex therapy to gays.
Enlarge Nadia Eweida, Shirley Chaplin, Lilian Ladele and Gary McFarlane (pictured clockwise) who launched a landmark case on religious freedom at the European Court of Human Rights yesterday
The case comes at a time when senior Christian leaders, including the archbishops of the Church of England and the Pope, have complained that Christianity is being pushed out of public life in Britain.
Paul Diamond, for Mrs Chaplin and Mr McFarlane, said: �These are real people, real lives, real damage suffered. There is no knowing where this will end as society moves in a secular direction. The situation in the UK is now critical.�
But James Eadie QC, acting for the Government, told the judges that none of the four Christians had suffered any form of discrimination.
�There is a difference between the professional sphere where your religious beliefs conflict with other interests and the private sphere,� he said.
�Everyone has the right to express their beliefs, including the right to display religious symbols, but not an absolute right or a right without limits. That does not mean that in their professional sphere anyone can manifest their religious belief in any way they choose.� He said that under European human rights rules, people were allowed to practise their religion in a �generally recognised form�.

However, they could not ask to express their religion in ways which were not a �scriptural requirement�.

Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons earlier this year that the right to wear the cross at work was 'an absolutely vital freedom'
He said: �Employees are free to resign if they find their employment incompatible with their religious beliefs�, adding: �They can obtain alternative employment in which they can reflect their religion as they wish.�
In the case of Miss Eweida, 61, from Twickenham, south-west London, wearing a cross was �a personal expression of faith and not a response to a scriptural command�.

Mrs Chaplin, 57, he added, had been told not to wear her cross because of new health and safety rules at Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital.
Of registrar Miss Ladele, Mr Eadie said Islington believed same-sex couples should have equal access to services and �this is a legitimate, even a weighty, aim for a public authority�.

For Miss Eweida, James Dingemans said that BA allowed Muslims to wear hijabs, Sikhs to wear turbans and bracelets, and Jews to wear skull caps.

Last night Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Christian Legal Centre said: �The Government�s double standards in their handling of these four cases has been astonishing.
�The PM says one thing to the media and in Parliament and yet shuns such statements at the most critical time, in legal submissions to the European Court of Human Rights.�

The court is likely to take several months before making a ruling

All around me I see men and women of other faiths opening wearing symbols (not all compulsory) of their own religion?! Women are allowed to wear clothing that allows only eyes to be seen (NOT a religious requirement) and no one challenges their identity! Some are evenallowed to wear swords/daggers while you are not even allowed a pen knife.

There should be NO displays of Faith if Christians are not allowed to have a cross. It MUST be the same rule for EVERYONE not one rule for one and one for another!

If the christians of this country do nothing about this then christianity here is dead, better give the country to the Muslims and others now and be done with it.

2Anne · Joined: 04 May 2008 Posts: 399 Location: Norfolk

It is not a requirement of the koran that muslim women wear the niquab but they do and are permitted to in work situations.
This disgusting double standards from the Cameron Government is an insult to Christians and white true Brits.
I hate the Labour party and what they have done to our country but am finding the Tory party to be just as big a bunch of liars and twisters.
totally sickening.