Contents
- Home
- News
- Main parties urged to take stock after BNP gains
- C of E promotes a Christian profile for Father’s Day
- Nichols: Children are polluted by market
- Churches argue for job discrimination
- Mixed response to Obama peace moves
- Frontier church ministers to Taliban and Christian alike
- Opposition to Forrester is building
- Pope ‘visibly upset’ at child-abuse briefing
- Blair begins his school project
- Sold: to a Friend on the phone
- Assaulted as he knelt in RC church
- Christian teachers face legal action, warns barrister
- Eviction stalls over ownership query
- Heavenly art: Exeter Cathedral
- Guildford first to go through
- Doctor claims signs of torture on asylum-seekers are ignored
- Movement
- Sydney cash crisis
- Foreign news in brief
- Locals fight plans for church land
- Fresh to ‘become natural’
- Question of the week
- Comment
- Letters
- Real Life
- Features
- Faith
- Humour and crossword
- Pastimes
- Books
- Arts
- Media
- Gazette
- Pageturning PDF
 back to News |
 previous story
|
next story 
|
Churches argue for job discrimination
by Simon Sarmiento
 Imposing views: members of the Church of England argue their case at the House of Commons this week |
|
REPRESENTATIVES of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church told the House of Commons on Tuesday that their existing right to discriminate in cases of employment, on the basis of factors other than religion, would be unreasonably limited by the new Equality Bill. A scrutiny committee was taking oral and written evidence this week, before starting its clause-by-clause examination of the Bill, which is scheduled for completion in early July. Richard Kornicki, speaking for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, and William Fittall, the secretary general of the General Synod, for the Church of England, both argued that the new definition in the Bill of “the purposes of organized religion” was a significant narrowing of the current law. The definition is used to define circumstances in which religious organisations can apply existing exemptions relating to gender, marital status, and sexual orientation (News, 15 May). The Solicitor-General, Vera Baird, disagreed strongly with their premise that the definition amounted to a substantial change, saying that a “licence to discriminate” had necessarily to be extremely narrow in scope. Mr Kornicki, who represents both Churches on the Senior Stakeholders Group established by the Government Equalities Office, confirmed that the new clause had never been discussed in that group. In written evidence filed earlier, the RC bishops had said: “There is a whole range of posts, paid or voluntary, where it is essential that the Church has the right to prefer a candidate whose life is in accordance with its ethos; these might include, for example, youth workers, members of marriage-preparation teams, and parish secretaries.” Mr Fittall said there were numerous lay people in senior posts that involved representing the Church, for example the director of communications. It would be unacceptable to employ in any such position any person who had been divorced and married again several times. Several other groups told the committee that they supported the proposed definition, and some argued for even further narrowing. These included the British Humanist Association and the Trades Union Congress. John Mason MP, who is a Baptist, has tabled a series of amendments to the Bill. Last week, John Wadham, from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, gave evidence in support of the inclusion of religion and belief among the strands to be covered by the proposed extension of the public-sector duty to uphold equality. He said: “I do not think that religious organisations and people’s celebration of and freedom to express their religion is as well-protected as it should be.” RC Bishops’ warning on Bill. The Roman Catholic Bishops’ submission to the committee contained strong warnings about its possible consequences, writes Simon Caldwell. They write that they fear that, for example, Christian schools and care homes could be forced to remove crucifixes from their walls, in case they offend atheist cleaners. Under the new Bill, they could be found guilty of “harassment” if they depicted images that were “offensive” to non-believers. The Bishops complained that because the burden of proof for the definition of harassment is reversed in legal proceedings, it would put them in an impossible position if people complained about any manifestation of religious belief, even on church property. “The practical consequences of this are that a Catholic care home, for example, may have crucifixes and holy pictures on the walls which reflect and support the beliefs of the residents,” said Mgr Andrew Summersgill, general secretary of the Bishops’ Conference. “If a cleaner found the crucifixes offensive, there would be no defence in law against a charge of harassment.” The Bishops argue that it is essential that a test of “reasonableness” be included, if Churches are not to be unduly penalised by the law. “If this Bill is serious about equality, everything possible must be done to avoid it having a chilling effect on religious expression and practice,” Mgr Summersgill said. |
_1_.gif "Nottingham University Distance Learning © site")