The Equality and Human Rights Commission - Essay Example

? The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is planning to intervene in four cases involving religious discrimination that are to be heard by the European Court of Human Rights. In rent times, there have been a number of instances of religious discrimination in the workplaces all over the world. The specific strategies adopted by certain employers seem to have interfered with the religious sentiments of some of the employees. In such cases, there has been a dispute between the two parties regarding the imposition of these employment policies. This paper has tried to handle the sensitive issue of religious discrimination in the light of the related legislation in this area. During the last few years, United Kingdom has witnessed four important appeals from British citizens regarding an attack on their individual Christian Faiths. The UK Courts of Law have integrated the four incidents into two cases. They have gained prominence by the name of Eweida and Chaplin Vs the UK and Ladele and McFarlene Vs the UK.Initially, the applicants had approached the UK Courts of Law, who had rejected their appeal due to the non-fulfillment of certain conditions. However, the cases are still in its proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights. However, this time, the EHRC has decided to intervene to ensure a fair trial to the applicants. The Main Issues The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is a non-departmental public organization which was established according to UK’s Equality Act of 2006. It started functioning from October 2007 and was Britain’s only organization which supervised issues relating to equality and human rights in the country. The Commission works towards reducing inequality, eliminating discrimination and encouraging good relations among the citizens. It also ensures the protection of their rights in a variety of circumstances. On September 15, 2011 the EHRC notified the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of its plan of intervening in four cases regarding the practice of religious discrimination in the workplace. These were four separate cases involved four British Government employees who were subject to unlawful discrimination regarding their Christian beliefs. The individuals involved were Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee, Shirley Chaplin, a government hospital nurse, Lillian Ladelle, a marriage registrar in London and Gary McFarlane, a counselor. The European Court combined the cases of these four persons into two cases: Eweida and Chaplin Vs the UK and Ladele and McFarlene Vs the UK. In the first case, both the women were asked to conceal or remove the Christian cross worn on their necklaces, by their respective workplace authorities. Eweida worked as a check-in staff in the British Airways counter at London’s Heathrow Airport, while Chaplin was employed as a nurse in a government hospital. Being Christians by faith, both Eweida and Chaplin were used to wearing a cross tied to their necklaces. However, their respective management authorities did not approve of this and asked the women to either hide the cross beneath their clothes or stop wearing it altogether. This was definitely an attack on their religious sentiments. While the authorities accommodated the customs of employees belonging to other religions, they discriminated against these Christian women. In the second case, the two Christians Ladele and McFarlene were dismissed from their jobs as they refused to be involved in actions contradicting their religion. Ladelle was employed as a marriage registrar in London’s Islington Council. When she asked the authorities to exclude her from legalizing homosexual relationships, the management decided to discontinue her services. On the other hand, McFarlene served as a counselor in a government counseling service who used to provide advice to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples. However, in some cases he had declined to offer psycho-sexual therapy to homosexual couples and as a result was terminated from his employment. The ECtHR consented to review the cases based on their respective appeals and pronounce their judgments on the cases. In this situation, the Court’s decision could have a significant impact on the EHRC in the EU member countries. The EHRC proposes to intervene in the case of Eweida and Chaplin Vs the UK, based on the reasoning that the Courts may not have given adequate importance to Article 9(2) of the Convention. The commission also plans to have a say in the issue concerning Ladelle and Mcfarlene Vs the UK, on the basis that the domestic courts came to the correct conclusions. (Alliance Defense Fund, 2011; EHRC, n.d) Earlier, the laws protecting the human rights of the British citizens were contained in ‘The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. However, these four cases of discrimination and the subsequent decisions of the UK courts brought about a change in the legislation in this area. The Regulations of 2003 were abolished and a new legal structure prohibiting discrimination and ensuring the protection of human rights was established under the Equality Act 2010 (EA, 2010). Section 4 of this Act contains the laws protecting the religious faiths and beliefs of the British citizens. Section 19 of the EA 2010, prevents the practice of indirect discrimination, related to all protected characteristics. It advocates that “a provision, a criterion, or practice is indirectly discriminatory if it puts or would put who share the religion or belief at a particular disadvantage when compared with people who do not share it, and the provision, criterion or practice cannot be shown to be proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end”. Section 19 of EA 2010 was formulated along similar lines as that of Article 3(1) of the Regulations 2003. When the four discriminated Christian citizens appealed to the UK Courts of Law, the latter asked them to identify the other British citizens belonging to their same faith, who would be placed at a disadvantage as a result of the policy of their respective employers. This was exactly what the 2003 Regulations had defined as a discriminatory activity. However, the applicants could not single out other Christian employees in their respective organizations who would be adversely affected by the strategy of the management. The strategy in question was regarding the dress codes and the counseling practices of the respective institutions. Thus, the applicants could not establish the clause of the 2003 Regulations and therefore their pleas were rejected by the Courts. Further, Article 9 of EA 2010 was not considered to be of any help to the applicants in their cases. Further, according to the opinion of EHRC, the domestic law of the UK does not adequately support Article 9 and Article 14 of the EA 2010. (EHRC, 2011) Article 9 (1) of the Equality Act 2010, enumerates the laws which protects the rights of the British citizens to possess individual religious beliefs. It accepts that these fundamental rights of the individual cannot be interfered with under any circumstances. Actually, every civilized society requires a legislative framework that protects the religious as well as the non-religious beliefs of its citizens. Article 9 of EA 2010 describes the individuals’ rights to have their own beliefs. Further Article 9 (2) of the same Act enumerates the citizens’ rights to manifest these beliefs. Overall, the provisions of Article 9 recognizes “belief or faith’ to be the central aspect of a human personality. It is one of the most important aspects that construe the identity of individual believers and their respective viewpoints regarding human life. Showing respect for an individual’s faith actually indicates showing respect for the overall human personality and dignity. With respect to the case of Eweida and Chaplin Vs the United Kingdom, the EHRC has proposed its suggestions under two arguments. The Commission has concluded that in determining whether there at all has been any interference with an individual’s rights of beliefs as stated in Article 9, the Courts of UK have to be careful in considering certain facts. This cannot be decided only by examining the individual’s choices about accepting a particular type of employment. This decision should be taken by adequately referring to the actions of the employers. (EHRC, 2011) The EHRC’s arguments in the case of Ladele and McFarlene Vs the UK have progressed along similar lines as in the previous case. The Commission has submitted its views about the case under three principle arguments. In the first place, it clarifies the laws described in Article 9 of the EA 2010, which protects the right of the individual to his own religious belief. Thr EHRC notes an important point of Article 9 in this respect: the article never propagates that the manifestation of a belief or a faith always requires the existence of a religion. The commission again urges the UK Courts to pronounce their decision on the issue of discrimination only after considering the actions of the employers of the organizations under consideration. The latter should definitely be evaluated along with the individuals’ decision of being employed in a particular form of gainful employment. After considering both the standpoints, the Courts will find themselves to be equipped in pronouncing a judgment on whether there really has been any discrimination of the individual’s beliefs as a result of actions of their respective employers. Finally, the EHRC admits that some employers may be justified in refusing to accommodate the exhibition of a discriminatory religious faith. In this case, the employers’ decision can be justified by considering that in most cases their efforts are aimed at abolishing discrimination and promoting equality among the employees of their organization. In such situations, the employers actions cannot be considered to be discriminatory against individual beliefs and faiths (EHRC, 2011). Therefore, the standpoint of the EHRC with respect to the two cases: Eweida and Chaplin Vs the United Kingdom and that of Ladele and McFarlene Vs the UK, is quite clear. The Commission had decided to intervene in the proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with regard to these two cases since it believes that cases require improved supervision. The Commission seems justified in taking such a decision. Both the cases involved incidents of religious discrimination against Christian citizens in their respective workplaces. There were four separate individuals involved in the cases, who had witnessed an attack on their religious faith under different circumstances. All of them had approached the UK Courts of Law seeking an answer to the discriminatory strategies of their respective employers. However, the Equality Regulations 2003, prevailing at that point of time required the fulfillment of certain conditions for the employers’ actions to be branded as ‘discriminatory”. The applicants were unable to prove the compliance of these conditions and as a result, their pleas were rejected in the Courts of Law. However, the proceedings of the cases are still on in the ECtHR. However, this time, the EHRC itself has decided to intervene in the proceedings to ensure that the applicants get a fair trial. Meanwhile, the UK has also effected a change in the legislature ensuring the prevention of discrimination and the protection of the human rights of its citizens. The Equality Regulations of 2003 have been abolished to give way to the new Equality Act of 2010. Following the Articles 9 and 14 of the EA, 2010, the EHRC has tried to present a case in support of the applicants of the cases. The issue of religious discrimination has gained considerable importance during the last few years in organizations across the world. The EHRC’s decision to intervene in the two cases of religious discrimination represents the progressive outlook of the public body in this domain. Conclusion The EHRC has decided to intervene in the proceedings of the ECtHR regarding the proceeding of the two well-known cases involving religious discrimination. This seems to be a prudent decision on the part of the Commission. It represents an example of EHRC’s efforts in preventing discrimination, protecting human rights and promoting equality among the British citizens. Religious discrimination is a sensitive issue in the modern society where certain organizational policies are found to interfere with the religious beliefs of a section of employees. The UK has formulated adequate legislation to deal with the issue and settle any cases of dispute arising in this area. These laws have also undergone changes in the recent times to suit the requirements of the practical cases. However, EHRC’s efforts remain laudable in this respect. They have always taken proactive measures to achieve their prime objectives. The organization has not hesitated in intervening in human rights cases where it has felt that its involvement would make a significant difference to the case. References 1. Legal Intervention of Religion or Belief Rights (n.d), EHRC, available at http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legal-and-policy/human-rights-legal-powers/legal-intervention-on-religion-or-belief-rights/ (accessed on January 14, 2012) 2. EHRC (2011), In the European Court of Human Rights: Eweida and Chaplin Vs the United Kingdom, available at http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/legal/ehrc_submission_to_ecthr_sep_2011.pdf (accessed on January 14, 2012) 3. Eweida and Chaplin v. United Kingdom - Statement of Facts and Questions to the Parties (2012), Strasbourg Consortium, available at http://strasbourgconsortium.org/document.php?DocumentID=5507 (accessed on January 14, 2012) 4. European court allows ADF to intervene in multiple UK religious discrimination cases (2011), Alliance Defense Fund, available at http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/News/PRDetail/5038 (accessed on January 14, 2012) 5. European Commission, (2012), available at http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm (accessed on January 14, 2012) 6. Cini, M (1996), The European Commission, UK, Manchester University Press 7. Sabathil, P, et al (2008), The European Commission, London, Kogan Page Publishers 8. World Bank, (n.d), European Union Accession, USA, World Bank Publications 9. EHRC, Career Guidance, USA, OECD Publishing 10. Alter, K (2010), The European Court’s Political Power, UK, Oxford University Press 11. Huges, P. (2008), Introduction to Health and Safety in Construction, USA, Routledge 12. Forowicz, M (2008), The Reception of international law in the European court, UK, Oxford University Press Read More