CLC Christian Interest Cases - latest news
Emily
Mapfuwa has been denied the right to bring a private prosecution
against the Baltic Flour Mills Visual Arts Trust for displaying a
traditional statue of Jesus with a grossly oversized phallus.Christian denied access to justice in Jesus statue case
Emily Mapfuwa has been denied the right to bring a private prosecution against the Baltic Flour Mills Visual Arts Trust for displaying a traditional statue of Jesus with a grossly oversized phallus. When the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) discovered Emily Mapfuwa was going to bring a private prosecution they considered the case for over a month and then decided to take over the case in order to drop it.
They base their decision on the following: there was a sign outside the exhibition warning that the content of the artwork might be considered offensive, that a defence based on freedom of expression was likely to succeed and that there was no public disorder.
This was a highly controversial exhibition which caused deep offence to the Christian Community and was offensive to many members of the general public. Freedom of Expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights is not unfettered but is subject to restrictions which include the protection of morals and the rights and freedoms of others.
We believe that such a scurrilous, gratuitous and offensive attack on the person of Jesus Christ who is held in veneration by millions of British citizens as the Son of God, and whose teachings have shaped our culture and heritage over centuries should not be tolerated in a civilised society.
At the Christian Legal Centre we believe the CPS’s actions fundamentally breach Emily Mapfuwa’s statutory right to seek to uphold the rule of law where the State will not intervene by virtue of section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
It is inconceivable that the CPS would have intervened in this way had the exhibition portrayed leading figures of other religions in this manner. Why is it that Christianity is now the one religion that can be derided and vilified with impunity? This is a sad day for truth and justice in our society.
Links to media reports:
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7720587.stm
The Scotsman, The Northumberland Gazette, The Melton Times, Wigan Today (all carried the same article)
http://news.scotsman.com/latest-east-anglia-news/Christians-warn-of-backlash-as.4680576.jp
The
Shields Gazette
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/CPS-drops-Baltic-publicdecency.4678940.jp
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7593386.stm
Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/religion.art
Evening
Chronicle:
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2008/09 /03/jesus-statue-lands-baltic-in-the-dock-72703-21665731/
Court date set for Animal Human Hybrid Licence challenge – 26th November
Arguments on behalf of Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE) and the Christian Legal Centre will be heard at the High Court on 26th November (date subject to confirmation by Court) as they seek to gain permission to challenge the decision made by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to grant licences for the creation of animal human hybrids. CORE and CLC will argue that the HFEA's decision, made in January 2008, was outside the bounds of the law at that time and that the granting of such licences was ‘unnecessary and undesirable’ given that alternative, ethical research available to the research teams should have been exhausted before considering the creation of animal human hybrids.
CORE and the Christian Legal Centre will also have their application for a Protected Costs Order considered saying that this is a matter of Public Interest. If Core and CLC are granted a Protected Costs Order, this can either be on the basis that they will not have to pay the HFEA's legal costs, or on the basis that the costs they risk in the case will be capped at a reasonable level.
Background to the case
On the 8th of April 2008, the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) and Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE) filed papers seeking judicial review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s decision to grant licences to Newcastle University and King's College London to use animal-human hybrids.
The legal challenge is on two grounds. First, CLC and CORE are arguing that the HFEA acted beyond its powers when it granted the licences because the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 does not permit licenses for the creation of animal human hybrids. Secondly, the 1990 HFE Act provides that licences cannot be granted unless the HFEA is satisfied that the research is necessary or desirable for one of a number of specified purposes and the HFEA is satisfied that any proposed use of embryos is necessary for the purposes of the research.
The CLC and CORE are arguing that the proposed techniques are unnecessary and undesirable as a result of technical advances and that the proposed techniques do not work and raise new scientific problems which will make the research meaningless.
There is no legal internal process either in the 1990 Act or in the new Bill for interested persons to object to or appeal against the grant of a license and ask for reconsideration. In view of this lack of public accountability, the only way of challenging the HFEA’s decisions is by way of judicial review.
Links to media reports on the case
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7323298.stm
Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558337/Christian-group-launches-
High-Court- bid-prove-creation- human-animal-embryos-illegal.html
BBC Radio 4 Today programme:
http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=59&avap=1
Links to lay summary of
the Newcastle project and the King’s College
Project
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1652.html
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1653.html
Christian Counsellor refusing to give advice on sexual problems to homosexual couples loses position with Relate, Court Date Set – 1st and 2nd December
Gary McFarlane, a Christian counsellor from Bristol, has been dismissed from his position at Relate after raising concerns about advising same sex couples on directive psychosexual therapy. Mr McFarlane had counselled same sex partnerships in couple’s therapy, but when it came to directive psychosexual counselling, he felt that he would be directly encouraging sexual sin. For several years he has been able to successfully counsel couples, helping them to restore their relationships. He has always received positive feedback from supervisors and clients. In 2007 Mr McFarlane, whilst training as a psychosexual therapist, discussed the potential conflict with his supervisor. However managers at Relate did not offer to accommodate Mr McFarlane's position but instead suspended him in December 2007 for what they believed was a breach of the equal opportunities policy. As a result, Mr McFarlane lost all his clients and was unable to continue counselling. In January 2008 he was reinstated on the basis that he would conform to the equal opportunities policy with the proviso that he could mention his concerns about psychosexual counselling in the future. However, a short time after returning to his job, complaints were made by employees and Mr McFarlane was called into a disciplinary meeting and eventually dismissed in March 2008 after his employers concluded that he had failed to adhere to the equal opportunities policy. No attempt was made to acccommodate or work through his beliefs, despite his success as a couple’s counsellor.
The Christian Legal Centre is supporting Mr McFarlane as he brings a claim at the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 1 and 2nd December.
Link to the Mail on Sunday article:
Police officer faces Disciplinary Tribunal on 24th November
PC Graham Cogman, is taking his police force to an Employment Tribunal on grounds of harassment because of his traditional Christian values. PC Cogman, 49, from Sea Palling in North Norfolk, has been an officer with the Norfolk Police for 15 years, having previously served in the RAF for 12 years. The case is set down to be heard in April 2009.
PC Cogman is taking this unprecedented action as a serving policeman after a series of complaints and investigations suggesting he is ‘homophobic’ – something he strenuously denies. He says that the ‘over the top’ promotion of homosexual rights within Norfolk Police makes being a Christian policeman, or an officer with traditional family values, extremely difficult, unless a person is prepared to ignore his or her conscience.
Prior to the case that he is bringing, he faces a full disciplinary hearing arising as a result of his views on 24th November 2008
Eunice and Owen Johns seek clarification on Council’s sexual ethics policy for fostering and adoption
Eunice and Owen Johns have been reinstated by Derby City Council to the application process to foster children. We thank God for this. They are endeavouring to obtain up front clarification on Derby City Council’s policy regarding Christian couples who hold orthodox views on sexual ethics, their suitability to adopt and whether that view is compatible with the Council’s Equal Opportunities Policy.
.
In recent weeks the Christian Legal Centre has advised many Christians on issues that concern them and has been in successful, in many instances, of ensuring that Christian position is heard and maintained in the public square.
The Christian Legal Centre is supporting several other cases the details of which cannot be disclosed for legal reasons. CLC relies on funding from supporters. If you would like to support the CLC generally or a particular case we could be very grateful. http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/donation.php
The
Christian Legal Centre is willing to assist in cases dealing with
life, marriage & the family and religious liberties. Please see
our website for further details or contact us at
