Tag Archives: ZZ: Eweida and Chaplin v. United Kingdom

Christian Concern: A special event has been held at the Council of Europe in relation to two UK Christians who are seeking a referral to the Grand Chamber in their religious freedom cases at the European Court of Human Rights.

Christian Concern: Three Christians whose cases were rejected by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) earlier this year have requested a referral to the Grand Chamber.

GoErie.com: There is no doubt that religious liberty is under serious threat in Britain, particularly for Christians,” says Paul Coleman, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which was involved with cases before the European human-rights court. “In the language of ‘equality,’ ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance,’ secularists have found a way to sideline and marginalize Christianity, successfully framing the moral beliefs of Christians as ‘intolerant’ or ‘discriminatory’ and unworthy of protection. Unless a true balance is found, where Christians can be accommodated in the public square and not shut out, we will see many more cases like the four before the ECHR in the headlines.”

Christian Post: For the first time ever, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the United Kingdom on a matter of religious liberty involving a Christian woman who worked for British Airways.

Rick Garnett at Mirror of Justice: Over at the site of the (excellent) Religious Freedom Project (a project of Georgetown’s Berkley Center), Roger Trigg has a very informative essay called “Canary in the Coal Mine,” in which he discusses four recent decisions handed down by the European Court of Human Rights. Here is his concluding paragraph . . .

Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe: We thank the Christian Legal Centre (www.christianconcern.com/christian-legal-centre) and Alliance Defending Freedom (www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org) for their detailed analyses of the cases and the text elements provided in this text. We also thank the European Center for Law and Justice (www.eclj.org) for their publications.

Paul Coleman appeared on the Zeb Bell Show to discuss recent EU Religious Freedom rulings. | MP3 audio 12:02 mins

Jean Kathryn Lopez at National Review and Troy Messenger: “There is no doubt that religious liberty is under serious threat in Britain, particularly for Christians,” says Paul Coleman, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, which was involved with cases before the European human-rights court. “In the language of ‘equality,’ ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance,’ secularists have found a way to sideline and marginalize Christianity, successfully framing the moral beliefs of Christians as ‘intolerant’ or ‘discriminatory’ and unworthy of protection. Unless a true balance is found, where Christians can be accommodated in the public square and not shut out, we will see many more cases like the four before the ECHR in the headlines.”

Paul Coleman on the Drew Mariani Show to discuss the recent EU rulings. | MP3 audio 17:32 mins

The New American: Roger Kiska, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which assisted in the cases of all four of the individuals, reacted to the rulings, pointing out that “Christian employees should not be singled out for discrimination. No one should have to hide their faith or act contrary to it. That type of intolerance is inconsistent with the values of civilized communities.” Kiska called the victory for Eweida “a significant step forward for religious freedom in Europe. However, it is extremely disappointing that the court ruled against the three other applicants. We hope they will appeal that decision to the Grand Chamber of the court.”

Religion Clause Blog: The Chamber judgment can be appealed to the Court’s 17-judge Grand Chamber. The Guardian reports on the decision, as does a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom.

EUObserver.com: Roger Kiska, senior legal counsel to the Alliance Defending Freedom, said that the “victory for one of the Christian applicants is a significant step forward for religious freedom in Europe.” However, he added that it was “extremely disappointing that the Court ruled against the three other applicants and it is hoped that they will appeal the decision to the Grand Chamber of the Court.”

Huffington Post (includes video): The U.S.-based Alliance Defending Freedom, which helped represent Eweida in British courts, said “Christian employees should not be singled out for discrimination. No one should have to hide their faith or act contrary to it.” The ADF called the other three rejections “extremely disappointing.”

Washington Post: The U.S.-based Alliance Defending Freedom, which helped represent Eweida in British courts, said “Christian employees should not be singled out for discrimination. No one should have to hide their faith or act contrary to it.” The ADF called the other three rejections “extremely disappointing.”

European Court defends right to wear cross but overrides Christian conscience in other cases

This post may be updated. Catholic Culture: Mixed religious-freedom rulings at European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that British Airways violated the European Convention of Human Rights in telling an employee in 2006 …

ADF Attorney Roger Kiska on the Zeb Bell Show to discuss pending religious discrimination litigation in the Europe. | MP3 audio 12:06 mins

OneNewsNow.com: “Christian employees should not be singled out for discrimination,” contends Roger Kiska, an ADF attorney based in Croatia. “No one should have to hide their faith or act contrary to it, especially when public employees of other faiths are accommodated, but Christians are not, which appears to be what happened in some of these cases. That type of intolerance is inconsistent with the values that civilized communities should have.”

ADF President and General Counsel Alan E. Sears at TellADF Blog: It’s an extraordinary breakthrough – a remarkable opportunity for the Alliance Defense Fund to stand in defense of religious freedom in the United Kingdom in cases that – if they are decided the wrong way – could have a negative impact on your religious liberty here in the United States.
On August 12, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) granted ADF permission to intervene in four rights of conscience (“freedom to disagree”) cases originating in the UK . . .

The European Court of Human Rights has granted the request of the Alliance Defense Fund to intervene to defend religious rights of conscience in four pivotal cases originating in the United Kingdom.