Conservatives and the Lillian Ladele case

Islington Council is lodging an appeal against an employment tribunal's judgement in the Lillian Ladele case. The council probably has a good case. Law bloggers Carl Gardner and Usefully Employed believe that the judgement is flawed on all three counts. Daniel Wise is less certain but hopes that the Employment Appeal Tribunal will at least clarify the law.

I think the legal bloggers are probably right about the findings of direct and indirect discrimination but I'm less certain about the harassment judgement being overturned. The wording of the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations is so broad, and the burden of proof so skewed against the employer, that harassment can be defined in almost any way the employee chooses. It amounts to, 'If I feel harassed, then I'm being harassed and it's up to you to prove otherwise.'

The reaction of some conservative commentators to this case has been surprising, especially when compared with their views on other religious discrimination claims. The Daily Mail criticised the refusal by Muslim checkout staff to sell alcohol, yet it applauded the decision to allow Lillian Ladele to refuse to do part of her job. Similar stances can be found among conservative bloggers. David Vance wanted the Muslim checkout staff sacked on the spot for not being able to fulfill their conditions of employment, yet he greeted the finding against Islington council as a victory for liberty. Cranmer argued that a Muslim sales assistant who refused to touch a book of Bible stories on sale at Marks and Spencer should have been disciplined but he was over the moon about Lillian Ladele's case, describing it as a commonsense decision and asserting that freedom of religious conscience should be protected in law.

I can't speak for the writers at the Daily Mail but Cranmer and David strike me as intelligent people yet their views on religious discrimination are inconsistent. Furthermore, they seem not to have grasped how employment law works. If Lillian Ladele can be excused from performing part of her job on religious grounds, then so can Muslim doctors and sales staff in shops, and, for that matter, any other religious fanatic who wants to cause trouble at work. If the Employment Appeal Tribunal upholds this decision, it will indeed protect religious conscience in the workplace - whatever a person's religion. That protection will be at the expense of employers who will have to make special provision for any religious employee that demands it.

Cranmer seems doubly confused because he proclaims the tribunal's ruling as a victory for religious liberty over Labour's equality agenda.

That is complete rubbish. Read the judgement. Download ladelejudgment.pdf

 The tribunal found against Islington under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. These are very much a product of New Labour's equality agenda. Lillian Ladele's victory is a direct outcome of that agenda.

The support for Lillian Ladele reflects a trend that I noticed some time ago. Some conservatives are backing those bringing cases under this equality legislation who happen to be Christian, presumably because they think it will somehow redress the balance against Muslims who have sought to use the legislation to similar effect. This puts conservatives in the strange position of taking the side of schoolchildren who want to flout their schools' uniform rules and employees who don't want to do their jobs.

As political-correctness-gone-mad stories go, 'Council worker exempted from part of her job on religious grounds' is up there with the best of them. Yet conservatives are championing her cause.

Six years ago, in his review of Aidan Rankin's The Politics of the Forked Tongue: authoritarian liberalism, Frank Furedi had this to say about the conservatives and political correctness:

Rankin's conservative critique has sensitised him to what he calls the "liberal surrender" to PC. But he is less forthcoming on the conservative embrace of PC. At a time when the Countryside Alliance routinely plays the victim card, and when Prince Charles uses the language of diversity to refer to the rural population as a minority, it is evident that liberals and leftists do not have a monopoly of harnessing the influence of PC.

Or, as Laban Tall put it more succinctly, "Victimhood's where its at now".

But victimhood poker is a dangerous game. If people have more rights as members of oppressed groups than they do as ordinary individuals, then they will be encouraged to make themselves part of an oppressed group.

British employment law imposes stiffer penalties for illegal discrimination by employers than it does for any other breach. If a tribunal finds that you have been unfairly dismissed, you can claim damages of up to £63,000. If it finds that you have been unfairly dismissed for reasons of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, the damages are unlimited. You could end up with a huge payout. The same applies in harassment cases. There is also no qualifying employment period for discrimination cases. You can bring a case if you have just worked for a company for one day.

Far better, then, to be a member of a disadvantaged group than just a regular employee. And with the discrimination laws being extended to religion and belief, that gives many more people scope to claim membership of such groups.  

Eventually, this leads to the growth of hyphenated identities, the elevation of group rights at the expense of individual rights and the erosion of that sense of social cohesion which has served this country well in the past. Why would conservatives, or, for that matter, true liberals or socialists want that?

Lillian Ladele's case is not a triumph for liberty. It is a victory for group rights at the expense of the wider society. The only good that might come out of it is a recognition that a law which gives rights to competing groups will be unworkable. I'm not optimistic though. I fear that this government, and probably the Tory one that comes after it, will continue to hand out rights to various supposedly disadvantaged groups at the expense of the rest of us.

Comments

[Letters From A Tory]

I'm also not sure how people can call for religious people to be sacked for not performing their duties in some circumstances but applaud when they ignore their duties in other circumstances.

Surely this lady has to sacked? If she refuses to do her job, she has to go. Personal preferences in terms of which responsibilities people want to adhere to is not acceptable.