 |
 |
The EHRC position seems to fly in the face of the European Convention of Human Rights which states:
• Article 17: Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention. (my emphasis)
• Article 10 (2): The exercise of these freedoms (to free speech), since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (my emphasis)
I cannot see (as Stonewall has outlined) how any “reasonable accommodation” for some individual’s religious beliefs (which may not be shared by other people even within their own faith tradition) which are about denying the rights and freedoms of others - e.g. denying services (particularly a public service) because of someone’s sexual orientation; or indeed (e.g.) someone of another religious or belief system that they find incompatible with their own. This is not the same as making adjustments, such as allowing a change of shift patterns, that have little no detriment for others and indeed may well enhance the rights of others by extending the opportunity for more flexibility.
The EHRC is opening a Pandora’s box that potentially undermines the whole principles of human rights protections, potentially enabling individuals to pick and choose which people’s human rights are worth protecting or not (depending on their own individual views). The EHRC should shut the lid as soon as possible.
Paul
Paul Crofts
Equality & Diversity Advisor
Department for Enhanced Learning, Teaching, Achievement and Employability (DELTAE)
The University of Northampton
Tel: 01604-893887
Mobile: 078 72 83 64 63
Web: www.northampton.ac.uk/equality
From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Felicity Cooke
Sent: 12 July 2011 15:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reasonable Acommodation of religious beliefs
Aspects of the EHRC position which I find confusing and unhelpful are the apparent conflation of 'reasonable accommodation' with 'reasonable adjustments', together with the example given of the rota change. The definition and practice of reasonable adjustments in the case of disability are well established and, for the most part, clear. The whole idea of 'accommodating' disability, for example, would fly in the face of the social model of disability. I think it is dangerous to substitute 'accommodation' for 'adjustment' and then attempt to apply it to something like religion and belief. As far as the example given is concerned, there is, I think, a clear understanding that something like a rota change to accommodate a religious belief and practice may be possible in some circumstances but not in others. For example, the size of an operation and the number of employees will have a bearing on whether such a rota change is possible.
I find the Stonewall statement very helpful in the case of LGBT people and would be interested to know the view of the EHRC Commissioners on the EHRC's new position.
Felicity Cooke
Equality Practice
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:41:07 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Reasonable Acommodation of religious beliefs
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> I'm normally a lurker here but feel moved to comment on this. So, from the
> article:
>
> 'For example, if a Jew asks not to have to work on a Saturday for religious
> reasons, his employer could accommodate this with minimum disruption simply
> by changing the rota. This would potentially be reasonable and would
> provide a good outcome for both employee and employer.
>
> Taking the devil's advocate position here (a suitable term I think): if I,
> as a conscientious philosophical atheist, am the person instructed to take
> the Saturday slot instead of my equally conscientious and observant Jewish
> colleague, what rights do I have under the current legislation to complain
> about this apparently positive discrimination in favour of another's belief
> system to my personal disadvantage? Again, if I find some religious object
> or image worn, used or displayed by my co-workers offensive to my
> (non-)beliefs, where might I stand? This may seem a petty or minor matter
> but I suspect it would not be seen as minor in the average workplace and
> the non-believer may hold his or her philosophical beliefs with as much
> tenacity and sincerity as a 'believer'.
>
> Questions like this may well be, as Darren says, more problematic than
> helpful.
>
> On another point, how long should the law continue to allow the C of E to
> discriminate against female clerics or gay men who wish to become bishops
> (for instance)? Should that blatant discrimination be subject to reasonable
> adjustments which permit the practice to continue? There's a bizarre danger
> of actually legally enshrining forms of clear discrimination as technically
> non-discriminatory through these suggestions.
>
> Richard Price
>
> --On 12 July 2011 13:51 +0100 "Mooney, Darren"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dear All
> >
> > I was wondering if anybody else had seen this press release from the EHRC
> > about intervening in the cases of Nadia Eweida & Shirley Chaplin and
> > Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane
> >
> > http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2011/july/commission-proposes-rea
> > sonable-accommodation-for-religion-or-belief-is-needed/
> >
> > The commission seems to be advocating a 'reasonable accommodation'
> > approach (similar to reasonable adjustments) for religious beliefs. In my
> > opinion the current law and approach already allows for accommodation
> > where required, but allows an organisation to justify certain decisions
> > such as dress codes, time off for religious observance, contract
> > conditions etc . To adopt a requirement to reasonable accommodate all
> > religious and philosophical belief systems may be more problematic than
> > helpful.
> >
> > Any other thoughts?
> >
> > Darren
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Darren Mooney BSc, MA
> >
> > Diversity & Equality Officer
> >
> > Human Resources
> >
> > Hart Building
> >
> > University of Liverpool
> >
> > Liverpool
> >
> > L3 5TQ
> >
> >
> >
> > T: 0151 795 5975
> >
> > E: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > W: http://www.liv.ac.uk/hr/diversity_equality/
> >
> >
> >
> > BAME Staff Network: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Disabled Staff Network: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > LGBT Staff Network: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> > [Image: "logos"]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Richard Price, Staff Welfare Officer.
> JMS 4D8, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton. BN1 9QG
> Tel. 01273-877712; Internal 7712
> [log in to unmask]
Ranked number 1 in the UK for Value Added
The University
of Northampton has achieved the top ranking among UK Universities for ‘Value
Added’ in the Guardian Universities League table for 2012. See more about
this on our website.
This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. We virus scan all E-mails leaving The University of Northampton but no warranty is given that this E-mail and any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor E-mail communications through our networks is reserved by us.