Hurrah! We now have a legal precedent…

…for ignoring the tenets of organised superstition when it comes to the Law.  This Judge, has explicitly enshrined the principle of one law for all in his decision:

Lord Justice Laws ruled that while everyone had the right to hold religious beliefs, those beliefs themselves had no standing under the law.

“In the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence,” he told the court.

While acknowledging the profound influence of Judeo-Christian traditions over many centuries, he insisted that no religious belief itself could be protected under the law “however long its tradition, however rich its culture”.

“The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified,” he said.

“It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”

So, can we now expect that all NHS ward staff will have to adhere to hygiene regulations, that all UK residents will have to abide by the laws about concealing their faces in public places – just as all must abide by the laws about, say, smoking in public places – and that all UK schoolchildren will have to abide by the rules about school uniform, with no legal discrimination against young female pupils?

I’m not holding my breath.

20 thoughts on “Hurrah! We now have a legal precedent…”

  2. It certainly appears reasonable, but the upshot is that a counsellor can be sacked for refusing relationship counselling to homosexual couples.

    Are you OK with that, as someone who greets any mention of homosexuality with graphic bottom-based denunciations?

    Should doctors and nurses be sacked if they refuse to assist with abortions, for example?

  3. I don’t think so, Araminta … ‘he insisted that no religious belief itself could be protected under the law’.

  4. When Gary McFarlane, 48, a father of two from Bristol, began working for Relate, the counselling organisation, in 2003, he did not allow his traditional evangelical Christian beliefs stop him from giving advice to homosexual couples.
    It was only three years later, when he qualified as a psychosexual therapist – a role which required him to give intimate sexual advice to couples – that he raised concerns about a potential clash between his work and his moral views.

    Not quite the case Brendano; according to another article in the Telegraph.

  5. Oops we are talking at cross purposes here, Brendano.

    My comment #1 was tongue in cheek, and my comment #4 was a slight amendment with a little more information in response to your comment #2.

  7. Brendano, instead of trying to needle me, as usual, with coy little questions, read my post carefully, especially the bits in bold. It does not matter what my view is on any law. all includes me. I abide by the law and demand one law for all. This decision sets a legal precedent.

    Be careful that your next comment is on topic, or, you’re toast.

    Araminta, another manufactured grievance, you think? Doesn’t affect the precedent which has been set, though.

  9. I’m not holding my breath.

    I wouldn’t if I were you – you might have to hold it for a very long time… 🙂

    No doubt there will be an appeal. I believe that the ex-Archbishop has involved himself in the case, so I expect that Gary will have no problems with funding.

    It really is about time that the situation was properly defined in law. My view (not that any judge is likely to take any notice of my opinion) is that if one’s religious ‘beliefs’ prohibit one from doing all or any part of the job for which one is paid – then don’t do the the job.

  12. Bravo: a manufactured grievance? Yes, I was suggesting that, he seems to have done a bit of an “about turn” but since he seems to be a married man with two children, it may just be that he feels unqualified to dispense advice to homosexual couples with regard to their sexual problems.

    The religious angle may have seemed to be the better grounds for action, especially with the backing of Lord Carey, but this may be a slightly cynical view!

  15. I believe that the above definition, as set out by the Lord Justice, is called living in a secular state.
    Isn’t that what we already live in?
    I’m confused.

  16. Thanks for the link, Araminta. Now let’s hope that the precedent is set and the UK can move forward, with people’s religious beliefs put back where they belong – as simply personal beliefs and that they stop trying to change the rest of the world to conform with those beliefs.

    RainerYou obviously have no idea some of the daft things that have been happening in the UK which would not be tolerated in Oz (I sincerely hope!) Nurses being allowed not to expose or wash their arms for starters…

  17. Thank you Boadicea.
    I still can’t get my head around the way that PC is enforced, to a crazy extent, in the UK.
    The Burka question, being discussed in Europe, leaves me a bit cold though. I remember lots of Europeans women wearing a headscarf not so long ago. Therefore I am prepared to see it as custom, or cultural expression.
    Damn pity if you ask me, for the true beauty of a women is carried in her face, all the other parts change with age. Covering your one and only truly grand expression, of beauty and intelligence, is a real shame to my mind.

  18. Rainer

    There is a huge difference between covering one’s head and covering the face. There is the security aspect – and I really do not see why everyone else should have to show their face and women in burkas do not, especially as it is not a requirement of Islam – it is a personal choice.

    There is also the communication and integration aspect – it is a clear indication, to me, that a woman who chooses to hide her face is saying “I don’t want to be part of this culture, even though I have chosen to live here”. And, even worse, if it the husband who has made the choice for her, then it goes against all the customs of the West which says that the genders are equal – and women are not ‘property’.

  19. What Boadicea – very eloquently – said. If I have to strip down to my socks to get on an aeroplane, or push the hood of my hoodie back in certain public places, then so does everyone else – one law.

Add your Comment