News

UK law ‘skewed to favour religions that aren’t Christian’

UK law ‘skewed to favour religions that aren’t Christian’

After losing yet another court battle, Andrea Minichiello Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, above, yesterday claimed that:

Week by week Christians are marginalised, threatened, sidelined, sacked and disciplined simply for holding normal conversations about their faith which is held dear to them.

She was commenting on the case of Victoria Wasteney, the NHS therapist who was disciplined for, among other things, handing Christian propaganda to a Muslim colleague. Wasteney had just lost an appeal against an Employment Tribunal’s ruling.

Judge Eady QC upheld the Tribunal’s ruling, which found that the NHS had acted reasonably in disciplining Wasteney.

According to the another of Williams’ dodgy outfits, Christian Concern:

Today’s ruling raises serious questions as to whether any Christian in a position such as Victoria’s will be protected, if they manifest their faith in the workplace.

Victoria is consulting lawyers at the Christian Legal Centre as she considers how to respond to the judgment.

victoriawasteneystill

Wasteney, above, who is Head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at a London hospital, was suspended for nine months and then received a written warning following allegations of ‘harassment and bullying’ by a Muslim staff-member.

An internal disciplinary panel dismissed five complaints against her but upheld three saying that Victoria was wrong to have:

• Invited her colleague to various church-organised events
• Prayed with her colleague (despite having her permission to do so)
• Given her a book about a Muslim woman’s conversion to Christianity entitled I Dared to Call Him Father.

This had taken place over a period of several months in the context of what Victoria believed to be a genuine friendship.

In April last year, the Employment Tribunal ruled that her NHS employer had acted reasonably in disciplining her.

Following a hearing last October, Wasteney was granted permission to appeal, after Judge Eady QC said that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should consider whether the original ruling had properly applied the European Convention on Human Rights’ strong protection of freedom of religion and expression.

Responding to her latest setback, Victoria said:

What the Court clearly failed to do was to say how, in today’s politically correct world, any Christian can even enter into a conversation with a fellow employee on the subject of religion and not, potentially, later end up in an Employment Tribunal.

I believe the NHS singled me out for discipline because Christianity is so disrespected. Previously a Christian worship service that I set up for patients was closed down, but accommodation for Muslims to practise their faith is wholly facilitated and encouraged.

Williams commented:

The United Kingdom has a strong foundation rooted in Christianity which has brought us freedom and flourishing. The NHS and our Education System were started by Christians – motivated by their faith. Our legal system was founded on Christian values and yet we now see that it is one of the most liberal and anti-Christian legal systems in the Western world.

We need a radical review of the balance of rights in this country which is skewed to favour religions and ideologies other than Christianity. This is ironic given that it is Christianity that has given our society freedom, tolerance and hospitality.

Hat tip: Agent Cormac and BarrieJohn

25 responses to “UK law ‘skewed to favour religions that aren’t Christian’”

  1. Bob says:

    This case, and that of Felix Ngole, is proof that Christians who take their faith seriously are being, and will continue to be, persecuted.

    The fact that the courts have failed to uphold the human rights of both prove that there is an inherent bias against the Bible. However, I’m not surprised – we cannot expect justice from a world that wrongly condemned Christ.

  2. Stuart W says:

    The Christian Legal Centre continue to be the kiss of death for any case.
    Thank you Bob, I was previously unaware that it was a ‘human right’ to try and convert others to your religion in the workplace.

  3. sailor1031 says:

    Just to point out that, far from being created by christians because of their faith, British law is based mostly on Roman law and common law; nothing to do with religion.

  4. Angela_K says:

    There will always be problems in the workplace if the religious cannot keep their delusions to themselves, and if the religious cannot or will not keep quiet, they should be sacked. Religion is a dangerous perversion that should be confined to Churches, Mosques/Synagogues.

  5. barriejohn says:

    As a staunch defender of free speech, I am appalled that this woman has been forbidden to read her Bible, gather with other members of her faith, discuss religion with friends, preach on the street corner, hand out religious tracts…oh, best scratch that – I’ve just been informed that I might have some of my facts wrong!

  6. Godless Psych says:

    I’m an employee of the NHS Trust against which this lady brought her case, although I didn’t know her and wasn’t involved in it or the subsequent investigation. I have, however, read the tribunal’s report, which you can find here:

    http://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/wasteney-et-ruling.pdf

    Contrary to what “bob” might like to assert, this case was nothing to do with persecution. She was correctly disciplined for an appalling lack of professional discretion in proselytising her faith to a junior colleague in a manner that was intrusive and unwelcome. Her defence, that she thought her behaviour took place in the context of a genuine friendship, is no defence at all.

    After she was disciplined, she tried to claim she was persecuted. The employment tribunal disagreed. The appeal hearing disagreed. She has been held to the same standards of professional probity that apply to everyone else.

  7. Alan Crowe says:

    Has anybody ever seen a photo of Andrea Minichiello Williams or Ann Coulter, where they didn’t look completely mad?

  8. Bob says:

    @Angela_K

    You state that religion….should be confined to churches…

    Does that mean that you oppose the right of free speech for street evangelists, or does free speech only apply to people who wish to promote lefty politics and anti-Israel propoganda?

  9. Angela_K says:

    Bob. Free speech is a one way street as far you religionists are concern, especially Islam. There has to be a line between what is acceptable to society as a whole and what is considered to be hate speech, religionists are rather keen on hate preaching when it comes to homosexuality. And, children should be protected from the utterly vile content of religious texts such as the bible and koran, being most unsuitable for young minds.

  10. barriejohn says:

    Godless Psych: Precisely. She practically forced a copy of I Dared to Call Him Father on a subordinate Muslim colleague. We were all obliged to read this book when I was a young Christian, and to claim that this was not an attempt to evangelize the woman was a deliberate lie – something that the religious are rather good at. You can read a resume of the tome here:

    http://www.amazon.com/Dared-Call-Him-Father-Miraculous/dp/0800793242

  11. barriejohn says:

    Biography of Bilquis Sheikh:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilquis_Sheikh

    Such people are heroes to evangelical Christians.

  12. Bob says:

    @Angela_K

    It is unfair to say that I believe that free speech is a one way street. I fully support the right of free speech for atheists such as Dawkins et al.

    As far as homos are concerned, I do not hate such; indeed, I feel sorry for these poor creatures – Romans 1 teaches us that God has given them over to what they do as a judgment upon them. Because of this they are grievously to be pitied.

    However, I believe they can be changed (1st Cor 6 v 11).

    As far as kids are concerned – they have souls and need the Gospel. Only this week I have had the privilege of giving French chick books (Le film de votre vie) to at least 20 French kids (aged about 11-14) in Canterbury.

  13. Angela_K says:

    Thank you for your reply Bob, as usual your nonsensical reply had me laughing. No such thing as soul, nothing tangible, nothing measurable or observable – oh wait, all I have to do is suspend my capacity for reason and logic and just “believe”

  14. Daz says:

    Bob The Blundering Bombast sez:

    “Romans 1 teaches us that God has given them over to what they do as a judgment upon them.”

    Yep, and Romans 2:2 goes on to say: “But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.”

    So yet a-bloody-gain, Bob, your “merciful, loving” god is forcing people to do things and then punishing them for doing what he forced them to do.

    I’m not so much concerned that you believe this heavenly sadist exists, Bobbity, but rather that you think it deserves anything but utter contempt.

  15. Bob says:

    @Daz

    Read Romans 9 v 14-18. God raised up Pharoah, hardened his heart so that he would not let the Israelites go, then plagued Egypt to show his great power.

    He is sovereign.

  16. Daz says:

    Yes, Bob, that’s what I said. Your putative god is an amoral, egotistical arsehole who does things not because they’re good, but because they stroke his ego, and yet you worship him.

  17. barriejohn says:

    “God is sovereign”. So there’s no such thing as free will – you can’t possibly have it both ways (as the actress said to the bishop).

  18. Daz says:

    God is sovereign. But Darwin is a tenner.

  19. Broga says:

    ” I’m not surprised – we cannot expect justice from a world that wrongly condemned Christ.”

    The above gem from Bob. I thought the fictional Jesus fictional death was all part of a divine plan so that Jesus could suffer and die for our sins. This idea itself is preposterous – one man dying to save the non existent souls of all humanity.

    I hope Godly Bob is not banned from this site. Here, we have no fear of free speech and he is an exemplar of the toxic effect of religious belief on the brain. He is also so silly in his comments that I wonder if he is not an atheist agent provocateur determined to pour ridicule on believing Christians.

    If so, you succeed admirably, Bob. Well done. Few atheists could do so much damage to Christian belief as you do in your outpourings.

    As for persecuted Christians: 26 bishops picking up £300 a day in the Lords; secular opinion censored on the BBC; padres paid in the army etc.

  20. L.Long says:

    The only documented xtian persecution was done by other xtians that did not like the way they looked at the buyBull!!!! (i.e. North Ireland)
    Roman persecution of xtians for their religion never happened. Xtians were thrown to the lions because they blatantly violated roman laws.
    Just as xtians are jailed for treating gays badly, are not in jail because of your dimwitted religion but because to broke the law!!!

  21. barfly says:

    @ L Long I seem to remember reading sometime back that some Christians thrown to the lions where there because they disagreed with the local bishops

  22. Trevor Blake says:

    Number of immigrants to England who are Christian. Number of immigrants to England who are Muslim. Which is the larger number?

    England is rightly questioning the power of Christianity in its country, but wrongly considering increasing the power of Muslims in its country.

    Here’s a free answer for both problems: atheism.

  23. tonye says:

    As an atheist, I do not (and would not) go to my place of employment and try to get people to drop their beliefs.

    I expect the same in return.

  24. Edwin Salter says:

    One thought (not at all about this particular case) is that our society is now so anxious about the ‘politically correct’ that we are excessively concerned to ‘protect the rights’ of all claiming a ‘minority’ label from the give-and-take of normal everyday interactions. This is obvious in such areas as sex/gender, faith, physicality and ability, and in the demand for ‘safe spaces’ where assertions and self-righteousness can go unchallenged. We are all odd/atypical in some respect so there’s no need for that fact alone to be favoured or denigrated, it’s merely neutral.
    Exclusiveness is not attractive to others, and part of the difficulty with the faiths is their private spaces and unshared languages.

  25. AgentCormac says:

    ‘Today’s ruling raises serious questions as to whether any Christian in a position such as Victoria’s will be protected, if they manifest their faith in the workplace.’

    And quite right too. Religiots like Wasteney and Hutton need to learn to keep their fairytail faith personal and private instead of trying to foist it on others.