The issue that we would like to address in this submission is that of the discrimination practised by religious organisations and individuals against other groups that do not enjoy legal protection. We would like to suggest some safeguards to protect vulnerable groups, specifically lesbians, gay men and bisexual people and non-believers against the hostility of religion.
Your interim report barely mentions sexual orientation, except in quoted legislation. The only significant acknowledgement in the whole report is:
[7.5] It is also important to recognise the potential tensions between different “rights” agendas, such as the relationship between those concerned with religious identity and those concerned with ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.
Our starting point from the report is:
[1.6] “Religious discrimination” is shorthand for what is more properly referred to as “discrimination on the basis of religion”. Characteristic of such discrimination is unfair treatment on the basis of religion.
This is a fair definition. It equally embraces discrimination based on the religion of the discriminating party and discrimination based on the religion of the party discriminated against. In particular, it clearly covers anti-gay discrimination by religious individuals and organisations, provided the discrimination is “on the basis of religion” and not merely a reflection of the prejudice in the wider society.
The paragraphs following the definition, however, and virtually the whole remainder of the report, go on to deal only with discrimination based on the religion of the victim and not that of the perpetrator. The only significant recognition of the latter is:
[5.4] [The provisions of the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act (Northern Ireland), 1970] have only rarely been used, but the scope of this law is not only concerned with incitement directed to, or against, religious groups. The Act is also concerned with incitement against any group when such incitement is carried out on the grounds of religion.
and:
[5.18] The Human Rights Act may also bring challenges to religious bodies themselves since certain practices of religious organisations might amount to discrimination.
Focusing almost exclusively on the religious beliefs of victims of discrimination results in a whole class of religious discrimination being omitted from proper consideration. We therefore ask you to have due regard to discrimination based on the religious beliefs of the perpetrator, and to include appropriate evidence and examples of this in the final report.
Most religions have restrictions and condemnatory laws in relation to homosexuality. At present, the Christian churches are engaged in a bitterly unpleasant debate about the whole issue.
The Catholic Church, under the present Pope, is unremittingly anti-gay, and actively agitates to retard the progress of equality for homosexuals. The Vatican refers to “practising” homosexuals in inflammatory terms such as “intrinsically evil” and “morally disordered”. The Vatican has even stated that discrimination against homosexuals can be justified. To quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, Tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Note that the ostensible concern in paragraph 2358 to avoid “unjust” discrimination is based on a false dichotomy between sexual orientation and sexual relationships. It is like deploring discrimination against left-handed people while at the same time insisting that they should not write with their left hand. By implying that homosexual orientation is some form of disability this paragraph is as discriminatory as the others.
The Anglican Church passed a hard-line resolution against active homosexuals at its Lambeth Conference two years ago, and is presently engaged in a protracted dispute about homosexuality within its own ranks. The liberal and orthodox elements seem unable to come to any agreement and there is a strong possibility that the issue may lead to a schism in Anglicanism.
Evangelical Churches throughout the Christian world preach what can only be termed hatred against gay people and in the United States this approach has resulted in violent attacks against and even the murder of gay people. In the UK, the recent controversies over Section 28 and the equalising of the age of consent saw many faiths uniting in common cause to defeat these progressive measures. Sometimes the methods employed to achieve these ends left much to be desired in terms of honesty and fairness.
In Islam the situation is even worse. In some Islamic countries, homosexuality is a capital offence and various barbaric methods of execution are employed. The Independent (17th April 2000) reported that a court in the Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia had sentenced nine young men to up to 2,600 lashes each for having committed “deviant sexual acts with each other”.
In Britain, some leaders of the Muslim community have made clear that they support these gross violations of human rights. Sheikh Sharkhawy of the Regent’s Park Mosque compares homosexuality to “a cancer tumour” which must be removed to protect the health of society. In Gay Times magazine (May 2000 issue) an article reveals: “Viewing homosexuals as ‘paedophiles and Aids carriers’ who have ‘no hope of spiritual life’ he [Sheikh Sharkhawy] openly and unashamedly argues for the execution of gay males over the age of ten and life imprisonment for lesbians.”
Hindus and Sikhs also added their voices to the call for Section 28 to remain on the statute books, as did Mormons and the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks.
Given that homosexuals have no specific protection from discrimination in law, it is clear that they are at particular risk from the hostility of religion. Although there is hope that the Human Rights Act will confer some element of protection for the rights of homosexuals, there is no specific reference in the Act to sexual orientation. Until it is tested in court it is far from clear whether this legislation will be useful in this respect. Case law may be made in piecemeal and individual fashion, and the outcome will be unpredictable. The Act applies only to public bodies.
Any proposed legislation aimed at preventing religious discrimination must be carefully framed to ensure that it does not give religious groups special rights to discriminate against others (which in effect it would if, for example, it were made legal for them to dismiss employees whose lifestyle they regard as incompatible with their faith).
Religious organisations are major employers. They run not only churches, but charitable bodies, schools, social work agencies, care homes and many other facilities that employ lay people. It is important, therefore, that the individuals who are employed by these bodies do not suddenly find themselves the subject of discrimination because they do not pass religious muster.
There have been many cases reported of religious discrimination against gay men and lesbians. For example, The Guardian (11th December 1999) reported: “A leading church charity for the homeless is facing accusations of openly discriminating against gays and lesbians.” The case concerned St George’s Crypt in Leeds, which has a written “statement on equal opportunities” that says “In order to safeguard the Christian ethos of the charity, it is our policy not to employ anyone whose lifestyle is inconsistent with our understanding of that ethos.” One example given of “inconsistent lifestyles” is “active gay or lesbian relationships”. In effect, it is saying that gay and lesbian people who live openly in a relationship cannot have jobs with this organisation. This we regard as an assault on the fundamental right to earn a living.
At present, the Christian Institute, which is based on Tyneside, is financing a court case trying to use Section 28 of the Local Government Act to deny funding to gay groups and AIDS education organisations in Glasgow. The payment of funds to these organisations (which have employees they need to pay) has been suspended by Glasgow City Council.
The Christian Institute has also put out a statement raising alarm at the new European Working Directive which, the Institute says, will result in church schools being “forced” to employ homosexuals and atheists as teachers. (Church of England Newspaper, 2nd June 2000).
In the United States, there are several attempts currently being made to introduce such legislation. In Kentucky the state legislature recently passed a law (House Bill HB70) which provides churches and other faith-based groups with a special legal shield against the enforcement of civil rights protections when those organisations offer to rent their facilities to the public. The legislation came in response to complaints from religious groups, including a Baptist Association. Four years ago, the church reluctantly rented one of its camp retreats to a non-theist group. Leaders of the Baptist association told a hearing of lawmakers that they were “uncomfortable” about renting the camp, “but did so out of a fear of being sued under state civil rights laws”. The new bill now permits churches or any other religious group to refuse “if the rental or sale of the public accommodation would be inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organisation”.
Opponents of the Bill said that it would permit faith-based groups to reject racial or religious minorities, gays or anyone else who was regarded as theologically unacceptable.
Representative Kathy Stein said: “This sends a message to the Commonwealth of Kentucky that it is OK to go back to the 50s and 60s when it was OK to discriminate against other people because they were different than yourself.”
The bill specifically fails to address the problem of sexual discrimination and leaves gay people open to exploitation.
In Louisville, Kentucky, a therapist at a home for disturbed youngsters run by Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, has been sacked because she was a lesbian. The American Civil Liberties Union has taken up her case and argues: “This is wrong for the vulnerable young people that the state pays the Baptist Homes to care for. It’s wrong for good, qualified employees like Alice Pedreira who lose their job over something that has nothing to do with their abilities and skills.”
Ms Pedreira filed a lawsuit against the Baptist Homes, which is supported with public money, on 17th April 2000 and commented: “I had a house and I had a family and I had bills to pay. I didn’t know whether I would be able to pay. I was just plain scared. The firing took away my civil rights and livelihood, and I’m still in the process of trying to recover from that. The most important thing is that this doesn’t happen to other people.”
It is clear that should religious sensibilities and tenets be given protection, rather than individual religious believers, this kind of discrimination will increase in this country, too. Although the Human Rights Act will offer some protection, it does not cover employment issues and this is an area where homosexuals are particularly vulnerable to religious discrimination.
A report from the Trades Union Congress (Straight up! Why the law should protect lesbian and gay workers, 19th April 2000) stated:
The TUC and the lesbian, gay and bisexual community believe that legislation is required to extend protection already available for people who suffer discrimination on the grounds of gender, race and disability to cover sexual orientation. A number of measures are currently under consideration both in Europe and the UK, and the TUC welcomes every step that recognises the reality of discrimination and seeks to do something about it.
The Government has decided against specific legislation to outlaw discrimination against gay people, despite a recommendation that it should do so from the Equal Opportunities Commission. Its rationale is that it would place a further regulatory burden upon business, and that would be undesirable. Instead, it has asked the EOC to draw up a Code of Practice on sexual orientation discrimination. But the Code is to be voluntary, which means it is unlikely to be embraced or even recognised by some religious organisations.
As non-believers we are anxious that free speech should in no way be curtailed. We have heard demands from various religious sources for the blasphemy laws to be extended. These demands should be resisted. Rather than extending these iniquitous laws, they should be abolished. No philosophy or belief should be immune to criticism, or even ridicule.
Any religious anti-discrimination law that is proposed should be worded to prevent all unjustified discrimination based on religious beliefs, including not just the beliefs of victims of discrimination but also those of perpetrators.
Anti-discrimination law must be concerned with actions not beliefs. No-one should have special dispensation to infringe the rights of others because of the infringer’s beliefs, whether or not these are classed as religious.
The final report should have due regard to discrimination based on the religious beliefs of the perpetrator, and should contain appropriate evidence and examples of this, specifically including religious discrimination against lesbians, gay men and bisexual people.
We would like to see in the final report more consideration of the needs and protection of non-believers who will, like gay people, potentially be disadvantaged by any proposed legislation. Although the interim report acknowledges that there should be “equal concern for the rights of Atheists, Agnostics and Humanists as well as for those of religious believers” (section 7.6), this aspiration is not borne out by the rest of the report.
We oppose any attempt to extend or re-write the blasphemy laws to cover other religions. We recommend that all such laws be abolished.
We would draw your attention to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance website. This is not mentioned in the interim report, and you may be unaware of it. Much of the site is highly relevant to the topic of religious discrimination. Among other things, there is a substantial subsection documenting the anti-gay discrimination and homophobia of a range of religious bodies. The home page of the site is at http://www.religioustolerance.org and the survey of attitudes and policies of religious bodies towards homosexuality starts at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur.htm