No Mrs Ben doesn’t see that at all, not in the slightest, which is why she has not understood a single thing I have said.

She thinks that my arguments are because I am a gay man and I am a gay man becuase I oppose the religious exceptionalism that is inherent in this judgement.

Despite the fact that many commentators have grasped this central fact, the central fact, to this debate independently of their sexual orientation, Mrs Ben persists in her (what she is incapable of seeing as homophobic views).

You started off as the ‘vituperative, spiteful, shrill’ and ‘hysterical’ gay man but she has decided that I am a worse gay man than you, because I ‘obviously dislike women’.

Yes I am mentally unstable and woman hater apparently, note how she contrasts ‘women’ to ‘gay men’).

She has spewed out just about every negative stereotype or trope about homosexual men in the book.

In fact ‘woman hater’ is an iconic homophobic trope (almost like the blood libel in anti-semitic discourse).

One of the oldest homophobic representations in the Englis language is a woodcut print ‘the woman haters lament’ (see Homosexuality in Rennaisance England by Alan Bray).

I’m quite disappointed that she didn’t call me a ‘molly’.

You aren’t interested in this because you are a gay man. But the failure to obtain contraceptive treatment is a very big problem in countries and indeed communities where what might be called “fundamentalist” catholicism flourishes.”

Do you not see, Mrs Ben, that the rulling in the Ladelle case is part of a programme to consolidate these religious excemptions, not undermine them. This ruling has made it twice as hard to dismantle the religious privelege granted to Catholic doctors. Indeed the judgement was sought in order to begin to create the precedents to entrench and extend such privelege. You ask:

“Shouldn’t I be able to insist that my Roman Catholic doctor (if I have one) gives me contraceptive advice regardless of his religious beliefs?”

The answer is OF COURSE! If a doctor is employed by the NHS then their duty is to the public. If they have religious taboos which prevent them offering the full range of services to the public without exception, they should set up a private practice aimed at other Cathlics or seek employment at a Catholic-owned clinic.

I understand your point and I think we probably agree. But Mettaculture seems to be arguing, if I can follow his arguments, that no such accommodation as you and I might think appropriate should be permitted and in this case that all registrars should be compelled to marry everyone who applies or else not do the job. This is because refusing to marry gays in civil partnerships is discriminating against them.

Sean

You say that exemption from carrying out abortions is on ethical grounds for doctors and therefore not religious. There may well be atheist doctors who object to carrying out abortions on ethical grounds but many Roman Catholic doctors and nurses do not dissemble – they actually state that they will not perform abortions or give contraceptive advice because it is contrary to the teachings of their church and their religion. It might just work as an argument for abortions but I don’t see how it can be sustained for contraceptive advice. Claiming it is on ethical grounds is just a convenient fudge to get around employing them.

Mettaculture

You do get hold of the wrong end of the stick don’t you? I don’t support “religious exceptionalism” or sharia law at all and I am not fan of Roman Catholicism in fact I am rather opposed to it.

I was merely pointing out that if you think everyone in public service should be legally obliged to provide the services they are paid to deliver,to everyone who seeks those services whether marriage ceremonies or medical advice on birth control, the logically, allowing some NHS staff to opt out of some kinds of treatment, should also be challenged.

Shouldn’t I be able to insist that my Roman Catholic doctor (if I have one) gives me contraceptive advice regardless of his religious beliefs?

You aren’t interested in this because you are a gay man. But the failure to obtain contraceptive treatment is a very big problem in countries and indeed communities where what might be called “fundamentalist” catholicism flourishes.

Yeah? And how many divisions of whinging fantasists like you does the Pope have?

In Harry’s Place Word, it is quite clear that anyone with a connection with (or even affection for) to the (dread!) Catholic Church should of course be excluded from society and it made absolutely clear to them (by a lengthy and brutal process of re-education so that they think like the writer of this piece) that their conscience and morality must not impact upon the way they live their life or their relations with wider society in any way.

Or you could just cut this Stalinist bullshit. I will pray for your conversion.

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/07/17/ladele-v-islington/

It seems, one of the Tribunal members worked for the Catholic Church.

ooooh quite a bitch queen for a homophobe aren’t we.

Add your own hyphen.

And as for length (size queen too?).

Well if we add up the words of your continuous, drip, drip posts compared to my fewer but lengthier posts, I think you’ll find that your words add up to more but mean rather less.

In all fairness ChrisC if I thought your real concern was one for an employee against an overbearing employer in the case of ladelle, I would give your arguments more credence but you have ‘previous’ so I don’t.

Now you can choose to see my comments on this as pure ego inflated opinion if you wish.

Now in common with, perhaps most, Lawyers my ego is rather larger than strictly necessary.

But it is a sense of self that allows us to comment here.

it is perfectly predictable that as I disagree with your opinion you would react to my comments as being mere pomposity by a person with an overinflated opinion of themselves.

On the other hand you have a choice to see the closely argued comments I have given with a freely given summary of the Law of Discrimination in Employment not as a tom cat spraying but as a democratic understanding that the law though often mystified is not that hrd when laid out in a way that enable ones opinions about a case to be measured against the way the law works.

When I have state; it is my opinion, ‘i think’ ‘it is arguable’ etc; these are not statements of narcisistic ppomposity but merely conventions to show that when I make an argument that is less than certain I shoud honestly state so.

The reason for this is that while a lot of the law is settled and certain, we have an adversarial system where two advocates argue and one side wins (actually strictly in Employment law it is the tribunal that determines unlike the rest of the law hence my criticisms of their judgment in this case as it not a precedent or a binding finding at all).

For your information I started doing tribunal work as a relief from the morally eroding nature of the criminal law.

I built a practice largely Pro bono before receiving union funding. I have only ever represented claimants not employers ( Iam a socialist you see).

In cases like this it is more troubling the employer is also local government and is generally a pretty good employer and damages they pay must come from the public purse that funds other services from a limited budget.

That does not mean that such bodies can not be terrible employers and I have taken a few cases against the NHS and Local Authorities.

I do realise that such institutions have a horrible habit (being so litigation averse) of attemting to cover up a bad situation or failing to own up to mistakes thus compounding the situation so that an employee can be treated horribly just becaue instittutions wont admit to errors.

On the other hand I have lon been worried about how harsh Tribunals often are towards local government while being outrageously leninet to private employers.

Really in cases of abuses of procedure failure to consult, unilateral contract changes, etc these claims are usually dismissed or if you win on the point there are no damages as the argument is if the employee affirmed the new contract by working they had no financial loss.

There is a tendancy for the business rep on the tribunal to be particularly harsh towards a Council (as well as the TU person) and I have witnessed mmany example (replete with smirks) where the tribunal chair is engaging in ‘malicious compliance’

I.E. where they think there is a potential conflict of laws (especially if they think it is bad law) and no or little case law, they may make a finding of compliance with a new law intentionally to create a major problem for the higher courts or the government to solve (in the abscence of case law even if the ruling seems off if it could be held to mean what the ruling claims then there is little sanction).

Now I hope I have given enough background on the law for those who are interested (the Legal Action Group books are very good for advisers as are the ACAS guides).

This really is a tremendouly important case for its potentially adverse effects.

Yes i find it worrying that people who should see this can’t seem to see past what they see as a marginal issue of who will conduct civil partnerships (as long as someone will do it).

I do think that a contributing factor must be the lesser value in a hierachy of rights that some people are prepared to grant to homosexuals than to religious believers.

The case has a far wider significance than that and though tthis case has been supported by the Christian Insttitute if you lool online at the agenda of such groups as the Muslim Lawyers association you will see that such a law is part of a legal strategy to advance the concerns of and protection for their faith against a secular legal system.

One of the very first cases under this law is already turning out to be of the kind that the strongest critics of such religous protection legislation feared.

Surely you realise that a political agenda to begin to enforce a religiously normative world view would be to target the socially more marginal and morally ambiguous (as seen by mainstream society) targets first?

The Law was changed after this Registrar took up her post. Had the Law been enacted before she was appointed her disinclination to officiate would be perverse; she knew what she would be required to do as part of her duties. Picking and choosing on any grounds would need to be seen in the light of her professed desire to under take the work. She had a choice. As the Law was enacted after her appointment she had no prior warning. The basis of her Employment Tribunal appeal was, however, on grounds of harassment at the hands of her employers following on from her ethical objection and the tribunal upheld her claim.

I am an Anglican who supports civil unions, gay and lesbian clergy. “Those whom God has brought together let no [one] put asunder”.

Labour stalwarts of old would have been extremely respectful of the long established organised working class tradition of solidarity – that is, within the Union/party/state you can disagree as much as you like, but you present a unified face to the bosses.

They would fully understand what Diane Abbot is doing, because the fear would be if you institutionalise the right to dissent on conscience, some scabbing numpty would invoke that to cross a picket line. Or, say, form a national government with the Tories.

Old Labour stalwarts, socially conservative or not, had/have a strong collectivist streak – much stronger than their modern Labour counterparts – which you should know if you have actually ever met such people, rather than simply read some unheard of Scottish artist’s ramblings on the topic.