Nobody will be forced...
Blogged by James Preece on 23rd January 2013
Dylan Parry makes the important point that back in 1994 the Sunday Trading Act was passed only after many assurances were made that nobody would have to work on a Sunday.
Thanks to the magic of Google and the online version of Hansard (the official record of what got said in Parliament) I can refer you to the second reading of the Sunday Trading Bill on 8th March 1994 in the House of Lords...
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
none of the options would have been acceptable to me without the provision for all employees, present and future, whether on the shop floor, in the loading bay, or elsewhere, to have the statutory protection to work when and where they choose and to be confident that they will suffer no retribution for declining to work on a Sunday.
[link]
Baroness Turner of Camden
It is not too much to say that the reason for the failure of previous attempts to legislate for general Sunday trading was the concern of people from all parties about the pressure that might be put on shopworkers to work on Sundays against their will.
...
The Bill provides that present and future shopworkers may opt out of Sunday working without any penalty and that dismissal of an opted-out worker of whatever age is automatically unfair if the reason for dismissal is the refusal or proposed refusal to do work on Sundays.
[link]
Baroness Trumpington
I shall just remind your Lordships how comprehen-sive those measures are. All existing shopworkers have immediate protection from being required to work on Sunday unless they are Sunday-only workers. To qualify for protection, workers will not have to serve a qualifying period of service; the protection will apply even if they are beyond the normal retirement age, and it makes no difference how many hours a week they work.
The protection is not limited to shop assistants. Whether you are a shop manager, a canteen worker, or the person who collects the trolleys from around the shop, you will still qualify for protection if you work in or about a shop which opens on Sunday.
It is not only existing employees who are covered by the provisions. New recruits will also be protected.
[link]
That is what was said in the House of Lords as the Bill was being debated. Here is what actually happened...
Christians have no right to refuse to work on Sundays, rules judge
A new ruling by a High Court judge - the first on the issue in nearly a decade - says that Christians have no right to decline working on Sunday as it is not a “core component” of their beliefs.
The judgment - which upholds an earlier decision - means that individual Christians do not have any protection from being fired for not working on Sundays.
Campaigners said the decision puts Christians at a disadvantage to other religions and means the judiciary are deciding what the core beliefs of Christians can be, which they say is an interference in the right to practise religion.
The judgment was issued by Mr Justice Langstaff as he ruled on an appeal brought by a Christian woman who was sacked after she refused to work on Sundays at a care home.
[link]
Turns out those comprehensive measures were not all they were cracked up to be. Perhaps you can understand my failure to be reassured when Mr Cameron says this...
"But let me be absolutely 100% clear: if there is any church or any synagogue or any mosque that doesn't want to have a gay marriage it will not, absolutely must not, be forced to hold it.
"That is absolutely clear in the legislation.
[link]
We've heard that one before...
Reader Comments
+12
Chrysostom said...
Congratulations on exposing this: politicians hate to be reminded of the promises they have broken. None of the three old failed parties is to be trusted.
I think it would be a good idea if parliament operated on Sundays; MPs would see what it is like.
Our Lady Help of Christians - pray for us.
St Athanasius - pray for us
All Ye English Martyrs - pray for us.
St. Charles Lwanga and Companion Martyrs of Uganda who were martyred because they resisted the advances of a homosexual paedophile – pray for us.
St Raymund of Pennafort - pray for us.
+
+6
shieldsheafson said...
In today’s increasingly secular society, the threat to religious freedom comes not at the point of a sword, but from imposed values at odds with the truth that there is a Creator who has given us certain inalienable rights that government is supposed to secure, not supplant.
Religious believers are being confronted by lawmakers, bureaucrats, regulators, human rights commissions, and others demanding that they submit to so-called neutral laws of general applicability that venerate such concepts as toleration, non-discrimination, and choice.
These modern arbiters of twenty-first century enlightenment don’t mind if you don’t want to comply. But there’s a catch: You won’t be able to earn a living in your chosen profession. Today’s barbarians seek not to end the free exercise of religion with a single knock-out blow, but rather to strangle it, gradually.
We are all at risk in a world where the government believes that outside the four walls of a church building - religious freedoms don’t apply; churches, religious organizations, non-profit and for-profit businesses, health-care providers, and anyone. In a world where such people and organizations are relegated to second-class status, or told to find a different line of work, or find signs on public facilities that says religion not welcome here, we have entered an era not of tolerance, but intolerance.
+
+3
New Friend said...
On the face of it this appears to support your concerns. Dig a little deeper and you will see it doesn't. It is all clearly there in the quotes and links James's provides:-
"In 1994, when Sunday trading in England was liberalised shopworkers were given a guarantee that working would be strictly voluntary, but the guarantee did not apply to people in other sectors.
The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations, published in 2003, say employers must justify Sunday working as a “legitimate business need” and does not give a blanket right to Christians not to work.
If employers fail to treat staff fairly and proportionately, the employee may be able to claim discrimination, the rules add."
Ms Mba was NOT a shopworker. Other Christian staff HAD agreed to work. The tribunal considered all of this and decided her employer was acting reasonably. You might not like those rules but they exist for everyone.
This is yet another case of this "Christian Legal Centre" stirring the pot, winding up feelings of discrimination amongst the faithful and losing again. All this does is raise the temperature and try to convince you that a secular world is attempting to persecute you, when it just isn't true.
The promises made by Mr Cameron on the opt out on performing gay marriages in churches apply to ALL, and not just churches run by shopworkers.
+
+2
Vincent said...
This is the crucial difference – the 1994 Act was about shops and Sunday trading. Most shops don't need to open on Sundays; they just like to, because their customers are happy to have two weekend days for buying stuff, so the shop makes more money. Shop workers (theoretically) have the right to opt out, because it's not essential that the shop open on a Sunday.
A nursing home, on the other hand, does need to have staff on duty every day; even Christmas or Good Friday. Otherwise, the old people starve or lie in their own filth et cetera. We might disagree with how the employer dealt with this particular employee's request, but we can't blame them for wanting someone to work on Sundays.
As New Friend says, the 1994 Sunday Trading Act is not really germane to this case.
+
+5
Mark Dobson said...
Um, talking about nursing homes "is not really germane to this case" either. James wrote about gay marriage legislation.
+
+2
New Friend said...
Yes it is. Ms Mba worked in a nursing home and it was claimed that her experience was relevant to gay marriage legislation, when it very clearly isn't. Pointing out that error is very germane to this case.
+
Fred said...
Moreover the judgment itself makes it quite clear that it was not saying what it has nevertheless been alleged it said. It is fairly short and straightforward and can be found at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2012/0332_12_1312.html
+
+5
Tom said...
Timely post James.
+
+17
Catherine said...
Thomas More has been dead nearly 500 years. Why should his legacy matter today? Barring relief from the courts, Christian entities, employers, and ministers in the coming years will face a range of unhappy choices. If the 'Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill passes in to legislation and takes full force especially after a few cases have gone to the ECHR against Christians, then Catholic and other Christian leaders can refuse to comply, either declining to pay the consequent fines in outright civil disobedience, or trying to pay them; they can divest themselves of their impacted Christian institutions; they can seek some unexplored compromise or way of circumventing the law; or they can simply give in and comply with the government coercion under protest.
Good people can obviously disagree on the strategy to deal with such serious matters. But the cost of choosing the last course - simply cooperating with the equal marriage legislation and its evil effects under protest - would be bitterly high and heavily damaging to the witness of the Church in the United Kingdom. Having protested against the proposed legislation over the past year and now with the 1 million post card campaign to MPs hitting Catholic parishes this weekend, the Catholic bishops cannot simply grumble and shrug, and go along with the political process without implicating themselves in cowardice. Their current resolve risks unravelling unless they reaffirm their opposition to the legislation forcefully and as a united body. The past can be a useful teacher. One of its lessons is this: The passage of time can invite confusion and doubt - and both work against courage.
Again: Why does Thomas More still matter? Why does he matter right now?
More's final work, scribbled in the Tower of London and smuggled out before his death, was The Sadness of Christ. In it, he contrasts the focus and energy of Judas with the sleepiness of the Apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane. He then applies the parable to his own day and the abject surrender of England's bishops to the will of Henry VIII: 'Does not this contrast between the traitors and the Apostles present to us a clear and sharp mirror image. . .a sad and terrible view of what has happened through the ages from those times to our own? Why do not bishops contemplate in this scene their own somnolence?'
More urges the bishops not to fall asleep 'while virtue and the faith are placed in jeopardy.' In the face of Tudor bullying, he begs them, 'Do not be afraid' - this from a layman on the brink of his own execution.
Of course, that was then. This is now. Both N America and the UK 2012 are a very long way, in so many different ways, from England 1535.
But we might nonetheless profit in the coming months from some reflection on the life of Sir Thomas. We might also take a moment to remember More's friend and fellow martyr, St. John Fisher, the only bishop who refused to bend to the king's will; the man who shortly before his own arrest told his brother bishops: '. . . the fort has been betrayed even [by] them that should have defended it.'
+
+1
New Friend said...
Catherine
As has been pointed out there are no parallels between the law on Sunday opening and whether churches need fear being forced to accept gay marriage. There are cast iron assurances being given on the latter. Your views are understood and respected. People like me would join you to oppose any move in that direction, but I am quite certain that it will not be necessary.
We are moving towards a greater tolerance, not a lesser one. That includes tolerating your own approach on this. It will not affect you. Things have moved on since the time of Henry V111 and Thomas More so I don't think there is anything to be learned from studying his words or experience, other than how to live in the past and believe in irrational fear.
+
+14
Damask Rose said...
Oh, really?
Didn't one of Francois Hollande's ministers in the French government tell the Catholics not to march or oppose the gay marriage legislation recently? Didn't he say that France now has a "secular" government and that as par the course, the government/secular state should be supported by everyone? What exactly was Hollande's minister intimating? That if you don't support the secular state, you're what? Madame Guillotine, anyone?
Catherine, thank you for reminding us of St Thomas More.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Sorry, I thought we were discussing the situation in the UK!
As I have endlessly pointed out a secular state is the greatest protection of your rights that you can possibly desire. Be careful what you wish for!
+
+2
Damask Rose said...
New Friend
I was using the French example as a rebuff to your comments as below:
"As has been pointed out there are no parallels between the law on Sunday opening and whether churches need fear being forced to accept gay marriage.
We are moving towards a greater tolerance..."
I thought you would understand, but I will try harder to explain more clearly next time. So...
Essentially, it seems that some countries have jumped on to the gay marriage bandwagon like a set of dominos falling into each other. And Britain seems to be a country that absorbs most things coming over from the USA*. Whether this is just a fad, a prompt from a pernicious PC-ness, or a nudge from the Marxist Frankfurt School, who knows. But let's not rule out the diabolic.
Again, with regards to your comment...
"We are moving towards a greater tolerance..."
...please see the following articles from the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267329/Hammond-breaks-ranks-fears-gay-marriage-saying-threaten-religious-freedom.html
(See the last para especially here).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260443/Lower-age-consent-14-allow-public-nudity-civil-servants-told-No10.html
As far as I'm concerned, the themes the article discusses here go hand-in-hand and there is the gay-legality aspect that is insidiously creeping in. Didn't Tatchell call for a lowering of the age-of-consent?
Some gays are more narcissistic than others and need to show more flesh than normal (my personal opinion is that this is about gays not being prosecuted for showing too much flesh, and unfortunately the general public (think of the children) will have to put up with it.).
A priest once told my parents and me that sadly in Germany, where he worked for a while, more things were sexually explicit in the public sphere. I can only hope and pray that similar scenarious will not be played out over here. I think the British public have been protected from the worst of it for years, or we're just a little bit more reserved over here, but this reservation has slowly been eroded and gay marriage will burst the bubble and all sorts will happen in the name of "equality" infront of our children.
I've read on the blogosphere that in the US* (I've used an asterisk so that you can make the connection New Friend), gays will walk fully nude into a McDonalds and will be served, the only caveat being that a towel will be placed on their seat for hygiene purposes. All this infront of families.
Finally, to end with some more quotes from you New Friend:
"As I have endlessly pointed out a secular state is the greatest protection of your rights that you can possibly desire."
Try telling that to all the people that have and are still living under the yoke of Communism.
"It will not affect you. Things have moved on since the time of Henry V111 and Thomas More so I don't think there is anything to be learned from studying his words or experience, other than how to live in the past and believe in irrational fear."
Let's not forget Nazism.
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5OnW0-HInI&feature=player_embedded"
People just pass laws.
The point James is making is that when laws, promises are reneged, there is a greater impact on life for some people after.
(I hope this comment is acceptable, I have, after all, mentioned a number of countries, French - to wit - France, Germany, US and by implication, most of Eastern Europe and China.)
+
New Friend said...
Rose
I won't answer in detail as we clearly have different opinions.
Laws and promises are not reneged. Law develops as circumstances and understanding evolves.
Communism is not secularism. It is a form of totalitarianism, as is Nazism. Secularism is merely the separation of the state from all religion, whilst permitting the free expression of religious belief for all.
I regard the Daily Mail as the very worst British newspaper, pandering as it does to every nasty right wing phobia. I don't ever take what it says very seriously.
+
+8
louella said...
There's just one thing for it....Christians will have to set up their own businesses etc. But of course, these will be attacked by the State which wants to destroy Christianity. However...Christians generally do things better...so Christian businesses will be popular with the public.
But it is a tragedy that Catholic doctors, nurses and midwives' talent is wasted in the NHS...when they should be employed in our own truly Catholic hospitals. God Willing...one day.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Louella
Nothing to stop anyone, and you can be quite sure that they won't be "attacked" by the state. That's just silly. Good luck. Any specifically "Christian" business has always looked pretty unappealing to me, and there are a few such bookshops about.
+
+1
louella said...
Of course they will be attacked by the heathen, hostile state under the guise of infringing some equality law or other.
But anyhow...Christianity seems to thrive under conditions of persecution. Just look at China!
+
+1
New Friend said...
Louella
The equality laws are there for all our benefit, yours included. Indeed you may well be glad of them in the future. They are not there to attack anyone. They are there to protect people.
Do you seriously think that the situation in the UK has any parallels with that in China? I see none at all!
+
+10
Mike said...
James,
Could you do some similar research on promises that were made during the debates on the Civil Partnership Bill that CPs were all that homosexuals wanted and that nobody wanted homosexuals to be allowed to marry.
+
+9
James said...
Something like this...?
"Here in the Chamber, we must pretend that this has nothing to do with marriage in order to perpetrate a deceit on the public, but in fact, not everyone in the Labour party is on message. I gather that in March, the Labour website ran a picture of the Bill covered in confetti to illustrate the similarity to marriage."
+
+1
New Friend said...
James
You pick a quote from a speech by Mr Howarth, which is full of oppressive comments and bigotry. He was attempting to insult, and not inform.
Gerald Howarth, the Conservative MP for Aldershot, has been described by one of his constituents, who probably knows more about him than we do, as fascist, racist and homophobic. For a more rounded view take a look at:-
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/gerald_howarth/aldershot?gclid=CJ3dzcLmgLUCFeTMtAoduVsAaQ
His style and agenda seems pretty clear to me. I am jolly glad he is not my MP.
Do you really want your views to be identified with those of this man?
+
+8
Tom said...
NF, you really do have a flexible approach to free speech. Did your mother never tell you that it's not very nice to label someone a bigot?
+
+1
New Friend said...
Tom
It may not be very nice but in Mr Howarth's case it is regrettably accurate. He made his remarks not just using free speech but under parliamentary privilege, so could get away with them. If you read his whole speech I think you might just agree with me. His own constituents have called him much worse things.
+
+1
Mike said...
New Friend is correct in pointing out that Ms Mba did not work in a shop but on the other hand did the judge rule that Christians have no right to decline working on Sunday or did he rule that Christians have no right to decline working on Sunday, except where shops are concerned?
+
Mac McLernon said...
Good post!
I made much the same point as you, James, back in December.
+