Sikh Court Opens in Britain

Religion Media Center reports that in England, the world's first Sikh court opened last Saturday. However, unlike Muslim and Jewish religious courts, Sikhism does not have its own legal code.

 According to the report:

The court [in London] was set up by Sikh lawyers who felt that secular judges lacked the religious and cultural expertise to deal with disputes between Sikhs. It will operate as an alternative forum for dispute resolution for UK-based Sikhs involved in family and civil disputes....

[Baldip Singh] aid its purpose would be “to assist Sikh families in their time of need when dealing with conflict and disputes in line with Sikh principles”....

[The court will] work within the remit of the Arbitration Act (1996), under which anyone — legally qualified or not — can sit as arbitrator so long as both parties agree to submit to the same set of rules....

At the first instance, Sikh court “magistrates” will mediate in disputes to try to negotiate a settlement, as well as directing court users to courses that can help them work on issues that have contributed to the dispute. These courses, developed with Sikh charities, cover low-level domestic violence, anger management, gambling and substance misuse and are available in Punjabi as well as English....

British Court Upholds School's Ban on Student Prayer

In The King (On the application of TTT) v. Michaela Community Schools Trust, (High Ct., Kings Bench, April 16, 2024), a British trial court in an 83-page opinion rejected a Muslim student's challenge to a secular secondary school's Prayer Ritual Policy (PRP) that prevented the student from using part of her lunch break to perform her Duhr prayer. The policy was adopted by the high-performing school, in which half of the students were Muslim, after prayer by some students led to divisions within the student body and to threatening social media posts.

The court said in part:

It seems to me that this is a case ... where the Claimant at the very least impliedly accepted, when she enrolled at the School, that she would be subject to restrictions on her ability to manifest her religion. She knew that the School is secular and her own evidence is that her mother wished her to go there because it was known to be strict....

... [W]hilst accepting that her belief is that she should perform Duhr during the relevant 25 minutes of the lunch break in the winter months, and that this belief falls within Article 9 [of the European Convention on Human Rights], the evidence indicates that the effect of the PRP is that Qada is available to mitigate the failure to pray within the allotted window....

... [B]alancing the adverse effects of the PRP on the rights of Muslim pupils at the School with the aims of the PRP and the extent to which it is likely to achieve those aims, I have concluded that the latter outweighs the former and that the PRP is proportionate....

The court also rejected the claim that the prayer policy violated Britain's Equality Act. The court also issued a press release summarizing the decision. The Guardian reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Church of England Faces Controversy Over Insincere Conversions to Gain Asylum

 The Telegraph reports on the controversy in Britain over whether the Church of England has been misled into converting Muslim migrants whose only motivation is to claim asylum on the basis of a threat of persecution if they return to their home countries as Christians. The paper reported in part:

The Rt Revd Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, the Bishop of Chelmsford, conceded it was “very difficult” to look into the hearts of converts and be 100 per cent certain that they were genuine.

She acknowledged there had been a “small number” of alleged abuses but said the clergy “do the best they can” and it was “ultimately” the job of immigration tribunals and the Home Office to assess and vet the validity of asylum claims.

Her comments come after robust denials by the Church of England of claims by senior MPs and whistleblowers that clergy have been routinely supporting “bogus” asylum claims and enabled a “conveyor belt” of thousands of asylum seekers to convert.

As reported by Law & Religion UK, questions about this issue were raised in Parliament last week, which in turn led the Archbishop of Canterbury last week to issue a statement (full text) in response, saying in part:

For refugees and those seeking asylum, we simply follow the teaching of the Bible which is to care for the stranger.

It is the job of the Government to protect our borders and of the courts to judge asylum cases. The Church is called to love mercy and do justice....

British Employment Tribunal Holds That Anti-Zionist Views Are a Protected Philosophical Belief

In Miller v. University of Bristol, (Bristol Empl. Trib., Feb. 5, 2024), a British Employment Tribunal held that anti-Zionist views held by a Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Bristol qualify as a philosophical belief that is protected under Equality Act 2010, Sec. 4 and 10. In a 108-page, 495 paragraph opinion, the Tribunal describes the professor's claims:

He contends that since at least March 2019 he was subject to an organised campaign by groups and individuals opposed to his anti-Zionist views, which was aimed at securing his dismissal. Further, he alleges that the respondent failed to investigate or support him in respect of this campaign and instead subjected him to discriminatory and unfair misconduct proceedings which culminated eventually in his summary dismissal.

In reaching its conclusion that the professor's beliefs were protected, the court applied the criteria from an Employment Appeals Tribunal decision, Grainger Plc v. Nicholson, one of which is that the belief "must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others."

The professor contended "that his anti-Zionism is not opposition to or antipathy towards Jews or Judaism," and apparently the University conceded that none of his actions or statements were antisemitic.

The court, in finding that the professor's beliefs are protected, said in part:

... [W]hile those in opposition to the claimant's views could logically and cogently argue that antisemitism is why Zionism exists in the first place, it is not for the tribunal to inquire into the validity of either belief.... 

The tribunal is aware that there are very strong opposing beliefs and opinions to those held and expressed by the claimant. However, ... the paramount guiding principle in assessing any belief is that it is not for the court or tribunal to inquire into its validity.

In a press release commenting on the court's decision, the University said in part:

 After a full investigation and careful deliberation, the University concluded that Dr Miller did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff in relation to comments he made in February 2021 about students and student societies linked to the University. As a result and considering our responsibilities to our students and the wider University community, his employment was terminated. 

Law & Religion UK has a lengthier discussion of the decision.

British Court Rejects Muslim Mother's Objections to Child's Routine Vaccinations

 In WSP (A Child), Re (Vaccination: Religious Objection, (EWHC (Family), Oct. 23, 2023), a British trial court rejected a claim by a Muslim mother that her rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights were being violating when the state insisted on routine vaccinations for her 9-month old son who, because of the mother's mental health condition, was in custody of the state. According to the court, the mother contended:

 ... [T]he use of animal products or animal testing in the production of the vaccines means that some (but not all) Muslims consider their use to be 'haram' (forbidden).... She is concerned that, if vaccinated, WSP would suffer emotional or psychological harm. If he does something haram without repenting, 'this would take him out of the fold of Islam, as he would not have adhered to the rulings of God made for people'. It would be harmful for him to have to repent for something he had no control over.... He may feel guilty and confused. He may question why his mother or grandparents did not stop the immunisations. He may also question his religion and his place within the family and/ or community if he has not allowed the same religious observances as others....

The court concluded in part:

... [I]n the absence of cogent, objective evidence of harm to his welfare, the mother's objections on religious grounds do not otherwise outweigh WSP's welfare interests in receiving the vaccinations....  Her religious objections must be given respect.... However, those religious views do not carry more weight the more strongly they are held or the more forcefully they are expressed.... Given my conclusion that the welfare reasons the mother has put forward do not outweigh WSP's interests in receiving the vaccines, the fact of her objection, even on well-founded religious grounds and however strongly expressed, takes the matter no further. WSP's welfare is the paramount consideration and the mother's objection is inconsistent with his welfare. The fact her objection is founded on her religious beliefs does not constitute a trump card that overrides what is otherwise in his best interests.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.                                                                                                              

British House of Commons Debates Role of Bishops in House of Lords

In Britain last week (July 6), the House of Commons held a 90-minute debate on current law which gives 26 bishops of the Church of England the right to automatically have seats in the House of Lords. (Full text of debate.) The debate was led by Tommy Sheppard, the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, who at the beginning framed the debate by saying in part:

There are only two countries in the world where clerics are automatically guaranteed a place in the legislature. One is the United Kingdom, and the other is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The question before us is whether we wish to be able to make that same comparison in future.

As the debate ended, he concluded: 

I want to stress that no one is suggesting that there is not a role for people of faith in our public life and in our Parliament. No one is suggesting that Anglicans should not be represented in the House of Lords or that bishops should not be in the House of Lords. In fact, 60% of the non-spiritual peers in the House of Lords identify as Christian, so it is hard to make an argument that that particular Church is under-represented in the upper Chamber. What we are talking about is whether this anachronistic situation of additional, guaranteed representation should exist for one Church and one institution alone, above all others.

Among those supporting the role of Bishops was Andrew Selous who said in part:

We have an angry and divided public square, social media lynch mobs, and so on. The world view that we pick up from the Church, however imperfectly demonstrated by the bishops, is one of love, forgiveness and grace, and we have never needed that more in our public life than we do at the moment. We need humility and hopefulness, and that is part of what the bishops point to. That is very necessary and extremely important in a troubled and hurting world. If it’s not broke, don’t change it.

And Neil Coyle who said in part:

I support reform of the House of Lords, but just targeting bishops for removal would leave the House full of Tory donors and political patronage, and that is not a House I would be happy to see.... Frankly, the composition of the upper House is less of an issue than its role....

I am mindful that a bishop at least represents a diocese, which gives them—more than others they sit with—a constituency, of sorts, to reflect in the House of Lords.... The bishops’ contributions come from their expertise and experience, are based on years of service, and are underpinned by values that are integral to what they bring to our upper Chamber.... Although there are so few bishops in the Lords, they have been crucial to narrow recent wins. Their votes have been decisive—I thank them for their service—including on the Government’s plan to sack nurses for daring to strike in favour of their employment rights and pay.... Lords should be commended for serving until 4 am, rather than being told that their contribution is unwelcome.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

British Court: Humanist Eligible to Sit on Advisory Council for Religious Education

In R (on the Application of Bowen) v. Kent County Council, (EWHC (Admin), May 26, 2023), a British High Court justice rejected a ruling of the Kent Conty Council regarding who is eligible for appointment to an advisory body on religious education in the county's schools. The court explained:

Mr Bowen sought to be appointed to join Group A of the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education (‘SACRE’) of Kent County Council (‘KCC’). Pursuant to section 390(4)(a) of the Education Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) ..., Group A is required to be ‘a group of persons to represent such Christian denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions as, in the opinion of the authority, will appropriately reflect the principal religious traditions in the area.’ KCC refused to appoint Mr Bowen because, as a humanist, Mr Bowen does not represent ‘a religion or a denomination of a religion’....

 ... [T]he ability to be a representative of a particular relevant belief on a SACRE is (at the very least) more than tenuously connected with that core value, so as to bring the alleged discrimination through the prevention of membership of SACRE within the ambit of article 9 [of the European Convention on Human Rights]..

... [A] religious education curriculum must, in order to be compliant with the HRA [Human Rights Act] 1998, cover more than religious faith teaching. The content of religious education teaching must include, at least to some degree, the teaching of non-religious beliefs (such as humanism).... 

The court concluded in part:

Analysed properly, when looking at membership of a group the purpose of which is to advise upon the content of a religious education syllabus, it is obvious that all people who are holders of belief systems appropriate to be included within that syllabus are in an analogous position. It is in my view clearly discriminatory to exclude someone from SACRE Group A solely by reference to the fact that their belief, whilst appropriate to be included within the agreed syllabus for religious education, is a non-religious, rather than a religious, belief.

Law & Religion UK has a lengthier analysis of the decision.

King Charles Coronation Ceremony for First Time Includes Participation by Non-Anglican Faith Leaders

The Church of England has published (full text) the 42-page Authorized Liturgy for the Coronation Rite of His Majesty King Charles III along with Commentary on each portion of the liturgy. Unique to Charles' coronation is the participation of representatives of faith communities outside the Church of England. Representatives of other Christian communities will offer blessings during the Coronation service (see pg. 25). They are The Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Thyateira & Great Britain; The Moderator of The Free Churches; The Secretary General of Churches Together in England; and The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. The Church of England's Commentary to this portion of the liturgy reads:

The progress of ecumenical relations since 1953 means that, for the first time, this Blessing is to be shared by Christian leaders across the country.

In addition, non-Christian faith leaders will have a role in the Coronation. The ceremony begins with a Procession of Faith Leaders & Representatives of Faith Communities (see pg. 2).  The Commentary to the liturgy reads:

Faith Leaders and representatives from the Jewish, Sunni and Shia Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Bahai and Zoroastrian communities will be part of the procession into Westminster Abbey. 

This represents the multi-faith nature of our society and the importance of inclusion of other faiths whilst respecting the integrities of the different traditions.

The ceremony ends with the new King receiving a greeting by representatives of the Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Buddhist faith communities:

As the King stands before the Leaders and Representatives of the Faith Communities, they deliver the following greeting in unison. 

Faith Leaders & Representatives: 

Your Majesty, as neighbours in faith, we acknowledge the value of public service. We unite with people of all faiths and beliefs in thanksgiving, and in service with you for the common good.

The King acknowledges the greeting, and turns to greet the Governors-General.

The Commentary to this section of the Liturgy reads:

In an unprecedented gesture consolidating the significance of the religious diversity of the Realms, the Sovereign will take his final moments of the service to receive a greeting from the leaders and representatives from the major non-Christian faith traditions. 

In a spoken greeting these faith leaders and representatives speak with their own voices, as communities, but deliver the greeting in unison, as a community of faiths, united in the service of others, and in thanksgiving for His Majesty’s example this day, and every day of his reign. 

We remain grateful to all faith communities for exploring ways in which such an act of unity could be produced, and especially to the Jewish community for finding ways to make this possible without compromising the observance of Shabbat.

CNN reported that  England's Chief Rabbi was invited to stay at St. James Palace over the Sabbath so that he could walk to the ceremony at Westminster Abbey.  Catholic News Agency in an article titled Catholic prelate to participate in British coronation for first time since Reformation reported that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales in advance of the Coronation has issued a special prayer card with prayers for the King. Law & Religion UK has additional reporting on the coronation.

New British Law Creates 150 Meter Buffer Zone Around Abortion Clinics

 On May 2, Britain's Public Order Act 2023 gained Royal Assent. Section 9 of the Act (full text) creates a 150 meter safe access zone around any abortion clinic.The section provides in part:

It is an offence for a person who is within a safe access zone to do an act with the intent of, or reckless as to whether it has the effect of—

(a)influencing any person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic,

(b)obstructing or impeding any person accessing, providing, or facilitating the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic, or

(c)causing harassment, alarm or distress to any person in connection with a decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic....

where the person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is within the safe access zone for the abortion clinic.

The Secretary of State must still promulgate the effective date of this section.  Law & Religion UK has more on the new law.

UK Supreme Court: Jehovah's Witness Organization Not Vicariously Liable for Rape by An Elder

In Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. BXB, (UK Sup. Ct., April 26, 2023), Britain's Supreme Court held that the Jehovah's Witnesses organization is not vicariously liable for the rape of a church member by an elder of the church.  The court said in part:

First, the rape was not committed while Mark Sewell was carrying out any activities as an elder on behalf of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He was at his own home and was not at the time engaged in performing any work connected with his role as an elder. So, eg, he was not conducting a bible class, he was not evangelising or giving pastoral care, he was not on premises of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the incident had nothing to do with any service or worship of the Jehovah Witnesses. The lack of direct connection to the role assigned to him as an elder makes these facts significantly different from the institutional sex abuse cases where, eg, as part of their jobs the [defendants] ... were living in the same institution as their victims....

Secondly, in contrast to the child sexual abuse cases, at the time of the rape, Mark Sewell was not exercising control over Mrs B because of his position as an elder. It was because of her close friendship with Mark Sewell and because she was seeking to provide emotional support to him, and not because Mark Sewell had control over her as an elder, that Mrs B went to the back room. The driving force behind their being together in the room at the time of the rape was their close personal friendship not Mark Sewell’s role as an elder. Put another way, the primary reason that the rape took place was not because Mark Sewell was abusing his position as an elder but because he was abusing his position as a close friend of Mrs B when she was trying to help him....

The Court issued a press release summarizing the decision.

British Court Rejects Parents' Challenge To School's LGBT Curriculum

In Montague v. Governing Body of Heavers Farm Primary School, (UK Cty. Ct., April 24, 2023), a British County Court, in an 89-page opinion, dismissed a suit by Christian parents who objected to a primary school's activities relating to LGBT equality. The court described the claims:

This is a claim for compensation, damages, declarations and recommendations pursuant to alleged violations of the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998 and for breach of Statutory duty....

The Claimants are black Christians whose 4 year old son Izaiyah Montague attended the school between 11th September 2017 and 19th October 2018....

In broad terms, the focus of this case is on the events from mid 2018 when the school decided to arrange a number of activities which would coincide with ‘Pride Month’ in June. It is the school’s position that these events were part of broader teaching throughout the year. This was directed towards supporting tolerance, challenging stereotypes and to prevent bullying....

The parents’ case is that the teaching at the school caused a conflict between their religious household and the approach adopted by the school, exposing their young and vulnerable child to the possibility of conflict and confusion. They further assert that the treatment of the complaints, the detention of Izaiyah and the barring of the Second Claimant were the direct result of their adherence to Christian beliefs and prosecution of a well founded complaint to the school....

In rejecting the parents' claims, the court said in part:

I do not accept that, as formulated, the curriculum the teaching I have outlined, was designed to promote LGBT beliefs over others. The difficulty that the Claimants face is that they have focussed on one aspect of a year long SMSC curriculum. There was very little examination of and criticism of the other five elements of the teaching. By throwing an intense concentration on one sixth of the teaching they have lost sight of, and distorted, the overall SMSC curriculum.... [T]he school were under a duty to meet the requirements of the Education Act....  Indeed I confess that I am very uneasy about some of the comments being made at the school gate and it is important for the children’s responsibilities and experiences in later life that there is some corrective to the ill informed views which were being articulated by some of the parents.

Fox News reporting on the case says that plaintiff is appealing the decision.

Britain's Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse Publishes Its Final Report

In Britain yesterday, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse which was established in 2015 under the Inquiries Act 2005 published its Final Report. (Full text).  The Executive Summary says in part:

This report is the final statutory report published by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (the Inquiry). In accordance with the Terms of Reference, it sets out the main findings about the extent to which State and non-State institutions failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation and makes recommendations for reform. It draws on the Inquiry’s 15 investigations and 19 related investigation reports, the Interim Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and 41 other Inquiry reports and publications. The Inquiry has made 20 recommendations in this report. These final recommendations complement the 87 recommendations contained in the previously published investigation reports (including six which have been restated).

Among the Inquiry's 15 investigations were ones into the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales and the Anglican Church.

UK Government Issues Suggestions For Places of Worship To Take Part In Mourning For Queen

In Britain last Friday, the government's Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities issued National Mourning Period: Guidance for Faith and Belief Groups and Places of Worship. It contains liturgical and operational suggestions for religious venues that wish to take part in the Period of Mourning for Queen Elizabeth II. Law & Religion UK has links to additional resources.

England's Law Commission Urges Reform Of Law Regulating Weddings

On July 19, the Law Commission of England and Wales released a 452-page report (full text) on reform of English weddings law. The Commission summarized its recommendations:

We recommend comprehensive reform from the foundations up: an entirely new scheme to govern weddings. Our recommendations will transform the law from a system based on regulation of buildings to one based on regulation of the officiant responsible for the ceremony.

Under our recommendations, all couples, as well as all religious groups and (if enabled by Government to conduct weddings) non-religious belief groups, will have the freedom to decide where and how their weddings will take place.

Law & Religion UK has extensive discussion of the proposals.

Britain's Sexual Offenses Act Now Outlaws Child Sexual Abuse By Religious Instructors

Britain's Sexual Offenses Act 2003 (Secs. 16-19) criminalizes abuse of a position of trust by engaging in sexual activity with a child or causing a child to witness sexual activity.  As reported by Law & Religion UK, amendments to the Act which expand the definition of "position of trust" came into effect on June 28. The Act now defines "position of trust" to include any person who knowingly coaches, teaches, trains, supervises or instructs on a regular basis in a sport or a religion. Religion is defined to include

(a) a religion which involves belief in more than one god, and (b) a religion which does not involve belief in a god.

U.N. Appoints Oxford Prof As Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief

At the end of its 50th annual session on July 8, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed Nazila Ghanea as Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief (press release). Ghanea is Professor of International Human Rights Law and Director of International Human Rights Programs at Britain's Oxford University (biography). Her research has included a focus on religious minorities in the Middle East, including Bahá'is in Iran. The United Nations press release announcing Ghanea's selection lists her nationality as Islamic Republic of Iran. 

British Tribunal Rejects Complaint Of Muslim Employee Over Use Of "Allahu Akbar" In Security Test

In Ali v Heathrow Express Operating Company Ltd., (EAT, April 7, 2022), the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an Employment Tribunal's dismissal of an Equality Act religious harassment complaint brought by a Muslim employee of the Heathrow Express train service. At issue was the conduct of a Heathrow Airport employee who duties involved carrying out security checks. According to the Tribunal:

[T]his involved creating and leaving suspicious objects to test how security officers responded to them.  In August 2017 it carried out a test using a bag containing a box, some electric cabling and, visible at the top, a piece of paper with the words “Allahu Akbar” written in Arabic. 

The Tribunal below held:

We conclude that in the circumstances that existed at the time it was not reasonable for the claimant to take offence at this incident. He should have understood that in adding this phrase Mr Rutherford’s team were not seeking to associate Islam with terrorism - instead they were seeking to produce a suspicious item based on possible threats to the airport.

In affirming the Employment Tribunal, the appellate court said in part:

It is not said, on appeal, that the tribunal should have concluded that these words had been chosen gratuitously with the deliberate purpose of causing upset....

We understand that a strand of the claimant’s case was that the use of this phrase was particularly insensitive, and offensive to him, not merely because it referenced Islam, but because of the sacred nature and significance of this particular phrase in religious observance.  While we do not accept that it was perverse not to regard the conduct of the second respondent as amounting in itself to the stereotyping of Muslims generally as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers, we do understand that he also says that, because such stereotyping is a significant and serious blight on the lives of Muslims, the use of these words in this context was particularly charged for him, more than, say, the use of an animal-rights slogan co-opted by some terrorists would be for a vegan.  However, we cannot say that these features point to the conclusion that the tribunal could only properly have found that the claimant’s perception that the conduct had the effects on him of the kind referred to in section 26(1)(b) was a reasonable one.

Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.

People's Tribunal In Britain Finds China Guilty Of Genocide Against Uyghurs

The Uyghur Tribunal, an independent People's Tribunal set up last year in Britain to investigate China’s actions against Uyghur, Kazakh and other Turkic Muslim populations, yesterday issued a 63-page Summary Judgment (full text). It concluded:

180. Torture of Uyghurs attributable to the PRC is established beyond reasonable doubt.

181. Crimes against humanity attributable to the PRC is established beyond reasonable doubt by acts of: deportation or forcible transfer; imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty; torture; rape and other sexual violence; enforced sterilisation; persecution; enforced disappearance; and other inhumane acts.

It then went on to find China guilty of genocide through its imposed birth control and sterilization policies designed to reduce the Uyghur population. Article II(d) of the Genocide Convention includes in the definition of Genocide: " Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." The Tribunal said in part:

190. Accordingly, on the basis of evidence heard in public, the Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the PRC, by the imposition of measures to prevent births intended to destroy a significant part of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang as such, has committed genocide.

191. This Judgment, with no evidence of any mass killing, may be thought to diminish the perceived status of genocide as a crime. In one way it may do that, and if so, in one way, not necessarily a bad thing. The use of superlatives ... when attached to tragedy brings public attention, sometimes at a cost to other tragedies able to attract less attention despite being as serious.

The Tribunal however expressed some unease over its genocide finding, saying in part:

183. The Tribunal recognises that this may be the first public evidence-based determination of a genocide under Article II(d) of the Convention (or of crimes under statutes in similar terms).

184. The Tribunal would, as a whole, prefer not to make such a finding and to allow findings of genocide in law to match more closely the likely general public understanding of the word.

185. The Tribunal recognises that a finding of genocide based on control of childbirth may even seem to some close to lawful management by governments of societies elsewhere; in the back of some minds might be awkward and uncomfortable considerations of worldwide unsustainable population growth.

Britain's Court of Appeal Rejects Christian Agency's Ban On Same-Sex Couples Becoming Foster Parents

In The Queen (On the Application of Cornerstone (Northeast) Adoption and Fostering Services, Ltd. v. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills (OFSTED), (EWCA, Sept. 24, 2021), England's Court of Appeal held that Cornerstone, a Christian foster care agency, violated the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 when it required clients with which it placed children to:

Set a high standard in personal morality which recognises that God's gift of sexual intercourse is to be enjoyed exclusively within Christian marriage; abstain from all sexual sins including immodesty, the viewing of pornography, fornication, adultery, cohabitation, homosexual behaviour and wilful violation of your birth sex.

The court said in part:

The detrimental impact on society and on individuals of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation has led the law to set a demanding standard of justification.... [W]e should be slow to accept that prohibiting fostering agencies from discriminating against homosexuals is a disproportionate limitation on their right to manifest their religion....

... [T]here can be no doubting the value of its work or the sincerity of [Cornerstone's] motives. However, in order to justify a policy of this nature, it needed to provide credible evidence that there would otherwise be a seriously detrimental impact on carers and children. The evidence it actually advanced did not go beyond the level of general assertion.... [W]hile I would not rule out the possibility of an organisation in this position putting up a substantial evidence-based case on justification, Cornerstone simply did not do that....

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

British Court Says Fetus Has No Rights Under European Convention On Human Rights

In The Queen (on the Application of Crowter) v. Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, (EWHC, Sept. 23, 2021), a 2-judge High Court panel in Britain rejected an attack on provisions in the Abortion Act 1967 that permit late-term abortions where "there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped...." This has been interpreted to include Down syndrome fetuses. The court rejected claims that this provision violates various provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said in part:

the European Court has never decided that a foetus, even one post-viability, is the bearer of Convention rights.... To the contrary, it has been content to leave the controversial and difficult issue of when life begins to the margin of appreciation of Contracting States. The fact that both domestic legislation and courts, and the European Court itself, have recognised that there may be circumstances in which the foetus has interests which the State is entitled to protect does not lead to the proposition that it enjoys rights under Article 2.

The court also issued a press summary of the case. Law & Religion UK also reports on the decision.