This is a point well made Dave.
The two pairs of cases are entirely different and combining them in this
intervention (though the EHRC may have had its reasons for doing so) has
only served to confuse the debate further.
Best wishes,
Moira
Moira Mitchell
Equality and Diversity Manager, Canterbury Christ Church University
tel: 01227 782795
-----Original Message-----
From: Ratchford, Dave [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 August 2011 14:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: EHRC Seeking views on Reasonable Accommodation
Colleagues,
Thank you for this. Having read it all now, I would just like to draw a
distinction between the two sets of cases. Whilst I firmly believe
Ladele and McFarlane should not be defended and that reasonable
accommodation should not mean that they would be allowed to 'opt out', I
am also very, very concerned indeed about the implications of Eweida and
Chaplin.
The current climate (although for various reasons one could apply the
same analysis at intermittent points throughout UK history to different
groups) means that any religious group might be targeted for prejudice
and exclusion at any given point. Therefore the precedent set in Eweida
and Chaplin could be that any religious expression that is not in vogue
at the time could be subject to exclusion. When will bindi or yarmulkes
or turbans be 'justifiably' excluded not to cause offence? What happens
after the next terrorist outrage blamed on someone's faith?
There are powerful compelling lessons in social psychological theory
that groups should never be repressed or their expression suppressed. I
have not laboured the point about Ladele and McFarlane as everyone here
seems clearly switched on to the dangers that they present. I'm just
worried that the points about Eweida and Chaplin might be lost.
Regards,
Dave
Dave Ratchford
Equality & Diversity Manager
Nottingham Trent University
005 Dryden Centre
Dryden Street Nottingham NG1 4FZ
Tel: 0115 848 2904 Fax: 0115 848 6551
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ntu.ac.uk/equality
Please note that this communication is in confidence from the Equality
and Diversity Team. If it has reached you in error, please delete
immediately and notify the Team on the above number given by the Sender.
-----Original Message-----
From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moira Mitchell
Sent: 18 August 2011 14:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: EHRC Seeking views on Reasonable Accommodation
Hi Jill and John,
Thanks for your responses. It would have been helpful if the EHRC had
been more explicit in their consultation text as to the implications of
their intervention.
However I'm glad to know I was thinking along the right lines and I will
respond accordingly.
Best wishes,
Moira
Moira Mitchell
Equality and Diversity Manager, Canterbury Christ Church University
tel: 01227 782795
-----Original Message-----
From: John McLellan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 18 August 2011 12:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: EHRC Seeking views on Reasonable Accommodation
There was a fair amount of email exchange on this topic a month or so
ago, on this forum.
Stonewall take the view that EHRC proposals do indeed mean what Moira
suggests. This is of great concern to any LGB people I have met, and
who know about it, as it does appear to be proposing giving the right to
people providing a public service to pick and choose who they will
serve. LGB people I know in Universities and elsewhere all say there
can be no 'accommodation' for discrimination like this.
Take a look at : www.stonewall.org.uk/media/current_releases/5751.asp
Regards
JOHN McLELLAN
E&D Adviser - NHS and HE sector
07850 690038
-----Original Message-----
From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moira Mitchell
Sent: 18 August 2011 11:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: EHRC Seeking views on Reasonable Accommodation
Dear All,
Thanks for sharing this Darren - I for one wouldn't have know about the
consultation otherwise.
I am considering how to respond but in their text the EHRC say very
little about what they are proposing. I am particularly interested in
the Ladele and McFarlane cases. Could anyone who has read this confirm
whether the assumption is that a potential "reasonable accommodation" in
these cases would have been to allow these individuals to refuse to
serve LGBT people?
This is what seems to be implied but maybe I have missed something?
Best wishes,
Moira
Moira Mitchell
Equality and Diversity Manager, Canterbury Christ Church University
tel: 01227 782795
-----Original Message-----
From: Mooney, Darren [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 15 August 2011 15:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EHRC Seeking views on Reasonable Accommodation
Dear All, this has come into my inbox and following out discussions last
month thought I would forward this on:
..........................
Dear colleague
Last month the Commission announced that we had applied to intervene at
the European Court of Human Rights in four legal cases involving
discrimination and religion or belief. We have now been granted
permission to do so.
We are considering using the four cases already before this Court as a
platform to advise on and clarify the interpretation of human rights
laws.
We are seeking your views on our proposed submission on the human rights
elements of the four cases claiming religious discrimination, and
separately, whether the concept of reasonable accommodation has any
useful practical application in cases concerning the manifestation of
religion or belief.
We have produced an informal consultation document which sets out the
general direction of the commission's intervention and asks some
specific questions. If you would like to respond, please do so by Monday
5th September. This is a short deadline but, as we expected, the Court
has only given us a few weeks in which to prepare our submissions.
For more information, please download the consultation document from our
website via the link below."
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legal-and-policy/human-rights-legal-p
owers/legal-intervention-on-religion-or-belief-rights-seeking-your-views
/
Darren Mooney BSc, MA
Diversity & Equality Officer
Human Resources
Hart Building
<http://www.disabledgo.com/en/access-guide/hart-building/university-of-l
iverpool-1>
University of Liverpool
Liverpool
L3 5TQ
T: 0151 795 5975
E: [log in to unmask]
W: http://www.liv.ac.uk/hr/diversity_equality/
<http://www.liv.ac.uk/hr/diversity_equality/>
BAME Staff Network <https://www.liv.ac.uk/intranet/bme/index.htm> :
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Disabled Staff Network <https://www.liv.ac.uk/intranet/dsn/> :
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
LGBT Staff Network <https://www.liv.ac.uk/intranet/lgbt/index.htm> :
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
logos <http://www.liv.ac.uk/hr/diversity_equality/index.htm>
DISCLAIMER: This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may
contain private and confidential information. If you are not the
intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to
anyone. In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error.
Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the
official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as
neither given nor endorsed by the University. Nottingham Trent
University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments
are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that
the email and its attachments are actually virus free. This is in
keeping with good computing practice.
|