1 / 8

Religious discrimination and the ‘hierarchy of rights’: non-existent, appropriate or problematic?

Religious discrimination and the ‘hierarchy of rights’: non-existent, appropriate or problematic?. Dr Megan Pearson Megan.pearson@winchester.ac.uk. Issues. 1.Is religion treated differently compared to other protected characteristics?

fcarroll
Télécharger la présentation

Religious discrimination and the ‘hierarchy of rights’: non-existent, appropriate or problematic?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Religious discrimination and the ‘hierarchy of rights’: non-existent, appropriate or problematic? Dr Megan Pearson Megan.pearson@winchester.ac.uk

  2. Issues • 1.Is religion treated differently compared to other protected characteristics? • 2. In the ‘clash of rights’ cases are religious claims undervalued? • 3. Has the inclusion of religion affected the Equality Act scheme? • 4. If religion is treated differently, are there reasons for this?

  3. Religious Discrimination v Sexual Orientation Discrimination • Andrea Williams: • ‘Our Public Services are increasingly using equality and diversity policies to leave Christians sidelined and punished. In effect this amounts to a religious bar to office.’ • Rt Revd Nazir-Ali: • ‘There is a deep fear in the United Kingdom that the Human Rights agenda is becoming set against human rights; and seeking to remove Judaeo Christian values from the public square.’

  4. How have cases asking for a ‘right to discriminate’ fared? • Ladele v Islington LBC [2010] 1 WLR 955 • McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 880 • Bull v Hall [2013] 1 WLR 3741 • Reaney v Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance ET 1602844/2006 • ‘Purposes of an Organised Religion’ Exemption

  5. But: • Claims of indirect religious discrimination to directly discriminate • Going outside statutory exemption scheme in highly sensitive context • Additional exemptions for religious organisations only – as well as usual GOR defence

  6. Expression cases: • Smith v Trafford Housing Trust [2012] EWHC 3221 (Ch) • Mbuyi v Newpark Childcare (2015) ET 3300656/2014 • Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth LBC (2006) ET 2301976/05 • Haye v Lewisham LBC (2010) ET 2301852/2009

  7. Has the inclusion of religion affected the Equality Act scheme? • Meaning of direct race discrimination – R(E) v JFS [2010] 2 AC 728 • Azmi v Kirklees MBC [2007] ICR 1154 – direct or indirect discrimination? • Indirect discrimination and group disadvantage • ‘core belief’: Mba v Merton LBC [2014] 1 WLR 1501

  8. How different is religion from other protected characteristics? • Sedley LJ, Eweida v British Airways ‘One cannot help observing that all of these [characteristics] apart from religion or belief are objective characteristics of individuals; religion and belief alone are matters of choice’ • Not merely status but requires behaviour

More Related