The Equality Bill, currently passing through the House of Lords, is very serious indeed, says Christian Concern For Our Nation. Listen to barrister, Andrea Williams and then act…
Tags: christian freedom, law, parliament
-
Explanatory notes to Schedule 9 of the proposed Equality Bill found at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/020/en/10020x-o.htm#index_link_234
“Religious requirements relating to sex, marriage etc., sexual orientation: paragraph 2
Effect
774. Where employment is for the purposes of an organised religion, this paragraph allows the employer to apply a requirement:
to be of a particular sex,
not to be a transsexual person
or make a requirement related to the employee’s marriage
civil partnership or sexual orientation, but only if -appointing a person who meets the requirement in question is a proportionate way of complying with the doctrines of the religion; or,
because of the nature or context of the employment, employing a person who meets the requirement is a proportionate way of *****avoiding conflict***** with a significant number of the religion’s followers’ strongly held religious convictions.
775. The requirement must be crucial to the post, and not merely one of several important factors. It also must not be a sham or pretext.776. Employment can only be classified as being for the purposes of an organised religion if the employment wholly or mainly involves promoting the religion, or explaining its doctrines, or leading or assisting in the observance of religious practices or ceremonies.
Example
This exception would apply to a requirement that a Catholic priest be a man.
This exception is unlikely to permit a requirement that a church youth worker who primarily organises sporting activities is celibate if they are gay, but may apply if the youth worker mainly teaches Bible classes.
This exception would not apply to a requirement that a church accountant be celibate if they are gay.”End of extract – note this is not the text of the proposed Bill only the accompanying explanatory notes…..
-
Does the definition of employment in Para 776 above:
“……if the employment wholly or mainly involves promoting the religion, or explaining its doctrines, or leading or assisting in the observance of religious practices or ceremonies.”
include RE teachers in Catholic Schools and exclude all other teachers?
-
Benet,
The youth worker on the sports field is part of the entire Christian ethos in this context. Everybody working in church positions must – at least – not contradict the Gospel/Church teachings. That has always been the position in Catholic schools, part of the contract of employment for everyone, non-Catholics included, and I know that non-Catholics also expect the youth worker to be a role model for the youngsters who frequent their church events. So, you need to cut through all the rhetoric here and understand that this Bill is a direct assault of Christian values and government interference on an unprecedented scale. It must be opposed.
-
The simplest way of opposing this measure is for every Catholic living in a Labour held constituency to inform his MP that he will not vote Labour if the Church’s freedom to choose its employees is abolished.
Catholics should not vote Labour.
-
I have signed the petition. It was not easy to find from the info in the video, so here is a direct link to the petition page itself:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/harryhammond/
You will receive by return an e-mail containing a link, which you need to click on. Having done that, your support is recorded.
-
Thanks, the convert. I should have posted the petition link separately, so thanks for correcting my carelessness.
Good point, Benet. That is definitely one thing to do but the other things to do are sign the petition and let the powers-that-be know that we are not going to sit quietly by while they remove our basic rights and freedoms.
-
That was a very good video by Andrea Williams, very clear. I think she is right, too, that this Equality Bill is all about the privatization of religion, as she puts it.
Benet, I agree that we shouldn’t vote Labour to show our disapproval but who can we vote for because they all seem to be the same. I know we’ve had threads on this before, but is there any opposition to the Equality Bill from any other party?
-
I am surprised that so few have commented on this important subject here.
The most informative article I have found on this subject is from the Guardian newspaper:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/24/religion-anglicanism
The author Simon Sarmiento is a founder of the Thinking Anglicans website.
“When Parliament made the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in 2003, an extra clause was added at the last minute which allows “a requirement related to sexual orientation” to be imposed when employment is “for the purposes of an organised religion”. Neither of these phrases was defined any further. There was quite a fuss at the time, and speaking for the government, Lord Sainsbury then said: “When drafting Regulation 7(3), we had in mind a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion.”
Following a formal complaint filed in Brussels by the National Secular Society, EC officials have been discussing this clause with the UK government since August 2006. Last November they issued a “Reasoned Opinion” which “maintains that the wording used in Regulation 7(3) is too broad, going beyond the definition of a genuine occupational requirement allowed under the Directive”.
“The Directive contains a strict test which must be satisfied if a difference of treatment is to be considered non-discriminatory: there must be a genuine and determining occupational requirement, the objective must be legitimate and the requirement proportionate. No elements of this test appear in Regulation 7(3).”
You can find the 2003 Sexual Orientation Regulations on the net.
They contain this clause 7 which allows employers to discriminate against homosexuals if:
(a) the employment is for purposes of an organised religion;
(b) the employer applies a requirement related to sexual orientation –
(i) so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion, or
(ii) because of the nature of the employment and the context in which it is carried out, so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers…
-
Benet,
I agree that it is surprising that so few have commented on this important topic, but think that is how the Abortion Act got passed and how the euthanasia bill will be passed, because Catholics are so apathetic when it comes to learning the facts about moral issues and making their objections known.
Your posts have been really helpful to me to build up a picture of how this equality legislation has come about but I was hoping you would answer my question about other parties, besides Labour and do any of them oppose this Equality Bill? I suppose I could check it by going through the different parties’ websites but on the off chance that you know, and have just forgotten my question, I’m asking it again.
-
Rebel:
Much of this legislation arises in Brussels.
There is strong support for the UKIP which pledges to get us out of Europe, and to give power back to our own Parliament.
In common with yourself, I am uncertain who to vote for as they all seem much the same, but at the same time, I don’t want to waste my vote on a party which has no chance of success.
May 7th could be a very interesting dawn.
-
It seems to be the Anglicans who are leading this battle. Yet again, the Catholic bishops are silent.
Whatever happened to Bishop Tartaglia’s war cry, on his appointment to Paisley, that we had to be prepared to be martyred over this issue of “gay rights” – which is really what this legislation is all about.
Plenty of words, as usual. No active leadership.
-
Dear Rebel,
Thank you for reminding me of your question. No party is really opposing this element of the Equality Bill.
It is important that Catholics write to their MP to inform him that they wish him to ensure that full and suitable amendments are made to the Equality Bill to ensure that Catholic organisations can select staff who abide by Catholic teaching.
So few people actually write to their MP on any issue that a few letters (say thirty – one hundred) on any one issue is seen as a “full postbag”.
As for voting in the next general election I will examine the individual candidates – especially on the Life issues – and check their voting record if they have one and make up my mind on that basis. If I get the chance I will also try to attend the hustings of the candidates.
-
Benet is right = we should contact our MPs without delay. Here’s a helpful resource for contacting your MP
http://www.christian.org.uk/mpvotes.phpor you may prefer this one
http://www.writetothem.com/I used the writetothem form to contact my MP – it only takes a couple of minutes to ask him/her to act, without delay, to amend the Equality Bill currently passing through Parliament, in order to ensure the independence and freedom of Catholic institutions to select suitable staff who will abide by Catholic teaching. So, what’s keeping you? Get on with it!
-
Just wish to say that I also have used the writetothem form to contact my MP. This Bill is nothing other than another step on the way to advancing the new world order programme.
God help us.
-
Sorry I cannot find a British newsource covering the Lord’s ammendments so here is a US one:
London, England, Jan 27, 2010 / 03:21 am (CNA).- Religious freedom provisions safeguarding the rights of British churches and other religious employers to require that employees live according to their sexual ethics have been passed in the House of Lords despite repeated opposition from the Labour government. Before the amendment, critics of the proposed Equality Bill said it treated the rights of religious believers as secondary and could have forced churches to hire youth ministers who do not support Christian ethics.
The Government claimed its plans would “clarify” the law, but churches said they narrowed important safeguards.
Lady O’Cathain had proposed the amendment to keep unchanged the current law, which allows churches and other faith-based employers to require that staff live consistently with their teachings on sexual behavior. Her amendment passed 216 to 178 in an initial vote.
According to the Christian Institute, the Government made an “extraordinary move” and broke with House of Lords convention to try to damage Lady O’Cathain’s victory. In two further votes her amendment won by 195 votes to 174 and by 177 votes to 172.
It is not known whether the government will try to overturn its defeat.”
It is strange that this news has not been publicised….
-
Thanks for that update, Benet.
I see the Pope has instructed the English and Welsh bishops to fight this legislation “with missionary zeal”. Given that they are permitting, with clear approval, the “gay” Masses in Soho, that just ain’t going to happen.
Let’s see if the Scots Bishops get the same message; we will wait, without bated breath, to see if Fr Willy Slavin is told to stop permitting the Quest Mass in St Simon’s. Yip, we look for action, after all the diplomatic photo-shoots and the spin…
Comments are now closed.
16 comments