I note that October's edition of the Safer Communities journal has an interesting article called "Scotland's approach to hate crime law."

The abstract reads as follows:

Hate crime law and the criminal justice system in Scotland are different and distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom. This article presents an overview of the development of hate crime legislation in the country, including: racist hate crime; religious prejudice statutory aggravation covered by section 74 in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 and dealing with Protestant/Catholic sectarianism; and the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009, relating to offences motivated by malice and ill will on grounds of disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity, the coverage of the last being unique in Europe. The legislation was enacted after lengthy consultations and achieving a broad consensus. It was agreed that a statutory aggravation of motivation by prejudice was not the appropriate way to deal with age related and gender based crimes and more work was needed. Scotland has not extended the offence of stirring up racial hatred to other forms of hatred. Compared to England and Wales, hate crime prosecution rates are significantly higher in Scotland, and the number of racially aggravated charges, per population, are four times higher. To what extent this is due to more crime, more reporting or a different approach to dealing with crime is not yet determined. The country's proactive approach to dealing with race and religion hate crime was to be extended to disability, sexual orientation and transgender soon after the legislation was enacted.

I tend to think that this approach to crime is prone to difficulties as inevitably more and more categories are added to the list of aggravations. What about gender? Or age? Or social class? Shouldn't we be stamping out these hate crimes too? And if the list is too long then all offences end up being aggravated and, therefore, none of them are. To quote W.S. Gilbert from The Gondoliers "When everybody's somebody - then no-one's anybody."

Labels: criminal law, Discrimination

A 600 member strong London Church won its legal battle this week against Lambeth Borough Council in a last minute out of court settlement.

The All Nations Centre in Kennington was served by Lambeth Council with a noise abatement notice on 25 September 2009, preventing the Church from amplifying their music or sermons to the congregation on threat of prosecution.

Although the Church has been at its current location for over 45 years, a small number of residents began complaining to the Council about noise levels shortly after the Church began a leaflet drop in the local community. A noise abatement notice was then served against the Church in September without any warning or discussion.

Church leaders believed the timing of the notice and the procedural irregularities meant that there were motives involved in the case. In October 2009, senior Pastor Abraham Sackey said: "The complaint has nothing to do with the noise and everything to do with our faith. Lambeth Council are driving us out and we feel harassed."

The Church sought the advice of the Christian Legal Centre. The All Nations Centre decided to go to court with the help of the Christian Legal Centre in order to appeal the notice issued against them but at the last minute the notice was withdrawn.

CLC has noted the increasing use of Noise Abatement Notices being used to effectively to categorise worship or the singing of hymns as Noise Pollution.

Local MP Kate Hoey has backed the Church throughout. In December 2009 she said:

"They have been serving the local community for many years, consistently helping to improve the quality of life and overall well-being of people within the local community ... It was therefore with a mixture of surprise and concern that I learned that they were served with a noise abatement notice."

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Discrimination, News

An additional support needs unit at a school on Skye is to be investigated by HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) following complaints from parents, backed by Govan Law Centre.

Allegations include claims that one pupil was forced to do excessive levels of physical exercise, contrary to medical advice and that another was left to soil himself and then changed in a play area that was not designed for this purpose.

Parents of three children attending the unit at Portree High School contacted Govan Law Centre, which notified the Scottish Government through a statutory complaints mechanism. The Scottish Government has asked HMIE to visit the school to investigate the claims.

Solicitor Iain Nisbet felt the nature of the complaints was such that they should be referred to the Scottish Government.

He welcomed the action taken by ministers. "The legislation allows Scottish ministers to investigate and intervene in cases where there has been any breach of education law,".

"Because we had been approached by a number of parents from the same school, we felt it was appropriate to alert the Scottish Government to these ongoing concerns.

"I am very pleased to see the prompt and effective response of the government and will await the report by HMIE with interest."

A government spokesperson said: "Ministers have asked HMIE to visit the Portree High School special needs unit following concerns raised through the Govan Law Centre."

• Claims of neglect trigger inquiry at special needs unit The Herald, 19 Oct 2009;
• Special needs unit to be probed BBC News, 19 Oct 2009.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Children, Discrimination, Education Law, Law Centres, News, Scottish Government

Very exciting news, my first Sheriff Principal case is now reported in the Scots Law Times at 2009 SLT (Sh Ct) 86.

Labels: Discrimination, Education Law

A survey by RNID Scotland found that only a fifth of venues in the Edinburgh Fringe provided induction loops for audiences.

RNID Scotland found only a fifth of venues surveyed provided induction loops for audiences. The equipment, which amplifies speech over background noise, is essential to help hearing-aid users access information about the shows and fully enjoy the performances. The charity is now calling on the Edinburgh Fringe organisers to improve provision for deaf and hard-of-hearing people before next year's events.

Director of RNID Scotland, Delia Henry, said: "The Edinburgh Festival is a wonderful event that should be enjoyed by as many people as possible. We think that the organisers and festival customers will be disappointed to learn that there are barriers to accessing shows because induction loops are not available at the box offices and at 76% of the venues we surveyed.

"We're hoping to work with organisers and individual venues to make sure that hearing aid users have a better experience next year."

Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 requires service providers to make "reasonable adjustments" to allow disabled people to access a service. It means that shows who do not provide facilities for those who are deaf could leave themselves open to legal action.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Discrimination, Edinburgh, News

Patrick Harvie MSP's Bill was unanimously passed by the Scottish Parliament today. So perfectly drafted was the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill that it was not amended at all during its passage through Parliament.

Surely, this type of legislation requires at least one MSP to yell "Thought Crime!" - maybe they did and were outvoted? At any rate, it will be law soon and any offences motivated (in part or in whole) by the victim's sexual orientation or disability will be punished with extra severity. And who could argue with that?

I suppose one of the problems with this kind of provision is that people start to feel left out. There are now aggravations in relation to race, sexual orientation, disability and religion. Now, what about gender? Or age? Or social class? Shouldn't we be stamping out these hate crimes too? And if the list is too long then all offences end up being aggravated and, therefore, none of them are. To quote W.S. Gilbert from The Gondoliers "When everybody's somebody - then no-one's anybody."

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, Discrimination, News, Scottish Parliament

A NHS Nurse with over 40-years experience has been sacked after he suggested two "patients" might go to Church to relieve stress during a role play session on a training course.

Committed Christian, Anand Rao, aged 71, was taking part in simulated situations as part of an exercise in palliative care. He advised two persons playing the roles of husband and wife patients they might like to try going to church to relieve stress. He was then sacked.

Mr. Rao has recently instructed the Christian Legal Centre to advise him and is considering taking legal action for religious discrimination against his former employer.

Okay, two things. First, there are a number of clinical studies which indicate that church attendance does, indeed, have positive health benefits - here is one example: "Keeping the faith: UC Berkeley researcher links weekly church attendance to longer, healthier life". So his advice had a sound clinical basis. Second, the advice was given on a training course to fictional characters. What kind of training course dismisses those who get the "wrong" answers anyway - was it designed by Endemol?

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

In this poast (sic), I just wanted to bring you up to date with my latest court outing, which just so happened to be an exciting, adventurous and - above all - victorious jolly to the Sheriff-Principal in Glasgow and Strathkelvin (my first). Extra gratifying as little ol' me from Govan Law Centre was up against the might of counsel.

It was a disability discrimination case (against an independent school) and the decision says some interesting things to say about where the onus lies in terms of the reasonable steps duty (largely with the school, as it turns out). It also confirms that a failure to take reasonable steps might lead to an exclusion being overturned - even if the decision to exclude does not amount to less favourable treatment.

You can read the full judgement here: ES. v. K. School. And you can post your congratulations in the comments box below! ;o)

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Children, Discrimination, Education Law, Glasgow, Law Centres, News

The Torygraph is venting its spleen about "political correctness gone mad" in Scotland's police forces, following the publication of a new diversity handbook for officers.

What is this paper's problem? The book seems to be full of useful advice like don't handcuff people who can only communicate by sign language if you can avoid it and don't use offensive terms like "deaf and dumb". I was doing some training for clerks to appeal committees who were asking about where they could get information like this for their committee members.

Use of language is important and taking the time to make sure you are not being needlessly offensive would seem to me to be time well spent. It might even instill just a little bit of much needed public confidence in the police force.

Ridiculously, the article veers between objecting to being told what to say and not say; and asserting that it's all so obvious that any police officer would know it all anyway! And, as usual, some rent-a-quote from the Taxpayers Alliance dives in to condemn the cost to the public purse.

And what was that cost? The astronomical sum of £4,500. For every police officer in Scotland? They should get a bloody award - that's amazingly cheap (and probably less than it cost the Taxpayers Alliance to get their press release out).

Who reads this drivel?

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Discrimination, News

Earlier this week, we reported on the case of Caroline Petrie, a nurse from Weston-super-Mare who was suspended without pay for asking a patient whether she would like to be prayed for. Following keen interest from the media, she has been reinstated by North Somerset Primary Care Trust.

Mrs Petrie, a Christian and mother of two, was suspended after her employers discovered that she had asked a patient whether she would like to be prayed for. Mrs Petrie had been told that she could face disciplinary action. On 28th January she attended a disciplinary hearing on the basis that she had failed to demonstrate a "personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity" by offering to pray for the patient.

North Somerset Primary Care Trust, in a statement issued on 5th February, said that they recognised that Mrs Petrie had been acting in the "best interests of her patients" and that nurses did not have to "set aside their faith" in the workplace, and could "continue to offer high quality care for patients while remaining committed to their beliefs". The Trust also said that for some people, prayer is recognised as an "integral part of health care and the healing process".

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

News from the Christian Legal Centre that a nurse from Weston-super-Mare has been suspended from her work for offering to pray for an elderly patient.

Caroline Petrie, a community nurse and a Christian, is facing dismissal for an alleged breach of her code of conduct on equality and diversity.

Mrs Petrie, who is married mother of two, has been accused by her employers of failing to demonstrate a "personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity" because of her offer of prayer.

She was suspended, without pay, on 17th December 2008 and will find out the outcome of her disciplinary meeting this week. She says she has been left shocked and upset by the action taken against her.

Meanwhile, the elderly patient in question (said to have been taken aback by the offer, which she declined) said: "Mrs Petrie was a nice lady, did the job properly and was quietly spoken. Personally I wouldn't want to see her sacked for something like that."

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

In the first ruling of its kind, a judge has ordered the Royal Bank of Scotland to install a lift so that a wheelchair user can have the same access as any other customer.

Furthermore, in recognising the embarrassing treatment the young man experienced at the hands of the bank, he was awarded £6,500 - the highest ever compensation payout in this kind of case.

In taking the case against the bank with the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, David Allen, a 17 year-old wheelchair user from Sheffield, has secured a historic legal victory.

Since the Disability Discrimination Act came into force in 1995, a judge has never before ordered an injunction to force an organisation to make physical changes to its property so that disabled people can gain access.

Mr. Allen's case will help ensure that a great number of disabled people in Britain are able to access goods, facilities and services. His case was taken with the support of the Commission and he was represented by the Sheffield Law Centre.

David Allen's legal battle began when, contrary to signage outside his local branch of the bank and information posted on its website, he found that he could not gain access. In a catalogue of incidents, David had to discuss his current account details in the street, breaching his right to confidentiality and causing him significant embarrassment. The bank then suggested that he should use the nearest accessible RBS branch, even though it was a 10 mile journey and amounted to a two and a half hour round trip journey by bus.

Judge Dowse of Sheffield County Court ruled that the Bank discriminated against Mr. Allen by not providing physical access to wheelchair users in its Sheffield city centre branch, and that the bank made no serious attempts to make the branch accessible to wheelchair users as required under the law.

In handing down his judgement, Judge Dowse said: "In the light of the findings, I have made it is plain that David has suffered from discrimination and that he has suffered from considerable embarrassment caused by the Bank". Quoting a previous judgment, Judge Dowse described discrimination against disabled people as "a social evil".

On hearing the Court's decision, David Allen said: "I'm glad justice has been done. I only wanted them to comply with the law and provide disabled access so I could get into my bank like my friends."

Labels: Discrimination, Law Centres, News

News reaches us from the Christian Legal Centre that Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor, has won a claim for wrongful dismissal against Relate Avon. He was sacked because his Christian beliefs prevented him giving sex therapy to homosexual couples. The Employment Tribunal was in December and Mr. McFarlane was represented by religious liberties specialist, Barrister, Paul Diamond.

Gary McFarlane had worked for Relate since 2003. He was disappointed with the hostility he had experienced from Relate. Although Mr McFarlane had never had to provide sex therapy to a same sex couple, he thought that if the situation did arise, he would be able to discuss his Christian views with his supervisors so that his position could be discussed and if necessary accommodated. Any such discussions were, however, pre-empted by unexpected meetings between Mr McFarlane and his manager in October 2007 when he was asked to state his views regarding same sex couples. Despite explaining that he would counsel couples in compliance with Relate's Equal Opportunities Policy, and that he would raise any issues with his supervisors and manager, as good practice required, Mr McFarlane was suspended in early January 2008 and then dismissed in March 2008.

However, although he won his wrongful dismissal claim, the Tribunal held that his claim of religious discrimination should fail. The Tribunal recognised powerful arguments on both sides, but held that the provision of non discriminatory services was important.

Andrea Minichiello Williams Director of the Christian Legal Centre said : "The law is in a confused state; in the case of Lillian Ladele, the Islington Registrar, the Court held that Christian belief must give way to the rights of same sex couples; but in the case of Gary McFarlane there is a finding of wrongful dismissal. The courts and public are confused; we call on the Government to recognise the legitimate expression of conscience by Christians in the area of sexual orientation and provide protection where necessary."

She continued: "It is important to note that Mr. McFarlane has never refused to counsel a same sex couple; he merely raised the potential conflict between his Christian faith and homosexual conduct. It is deeply disturbing that the mere expression of religious belief with an inability to give unqualified support to sexual orientation issues means that a Christian can be dismissed with no attempt to provide suitable accommodation for his or her beliefs. The law preventing religious discrimination against Christians is in danger of becoming a dead letter".

McFarlane v. Relate Avon Limted ET 1401179/08 (Bristol)

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

The Court of Appeal has ruled that workplace harrassment "on the grounds of" sexual orientation may be unlawful regardless of whether the victim is (or is thought to be) of the sexuality in question.

A Mr. English was married with children and was not gay. His colleagues knew he was not gay. However, since he had gone to boarding school and lived in Brighton, he was called "faggott" and lurid comments regarding him were published in the works' magazine.

His case for harassment was rejected by the Employment Tribunal - as he was not, in fact, gay.

However, the Court of Appeal held that the behaviour complained of did offend against the Sexual Orientation Regulations. The court stated: "If, as is common ground, tormenting a man who is believed to be gay but is not amounts to unlawful harassment, the distance from there to tormenting a man who is being treated as if he were gay when he is not is barely perceptible."

Sedley LJ opined that the application of anti-discrimination laws should not be dependent on an individual identifying themselves as belonging to one or other strict definition of their sexuality - sexuality being "a nuanced" issue.

School playgrounds up and down the country - take note!

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is to consider whether to use its statutory powers to bring a legal challenge against Aberdeen City Council on whether their recent budget cuts have been "equality impact assessed" as required by law.

The council cutbacks caused controversy in May when the authority closed the Choices disabled day centre. Choices offered respite care for 56 people and was closed as part of the council's programme of budget savings. Choices campaigner Kevin McCahery, the petitioner in the case of McCahery v. Aberdeen City Council was reported by BBC News as saying he was delighted at the news.

Labels: Discrimination, News

So, other than Gavin Henson's return to first team rugby with the Ospreys, what else has caught my eye today?

Well, Mark Irvine of Action 4 Equality has discovered that the cost to Glasgow City Council of all the "independent" lawyers advising equal pay claimants on their compromise agreements back in 2005 was a hefty £347,477.76 - quite a pay packet. Fortunately, the Council made doubly sure that they were paying the female lawyers the same rate as their male colleagues.

I also came across an equal pay campaign initiated by the Conservative party (sic) which reveals that over a lifetime the cost of being female in lost wages alone is £300,000! (And that's before you add in the price of killer heels and matching handbag for the interview.) The campaign's slogan, "Women - Like men, only cheaper." is a good one in that it's not at all open to misinterpretation or innuendo.

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, Glasgow, Tax

With the Scottish Premier League kicking off on Saturday 9 August, Strathclyde Police has teamed up with partners across North Lanarkshire to launch a poster campaign aimed at tackling discrimination and hate crime: "We're On The Ball."

Posters will be displayed in public places across North Lanarkshire and will help reinforce key messages of the nation-wide "Show Racism the Red Card" which campaigns against racism in football and society.

But it's not just about racism. The "We're On The Ball" campaign will highlight the fact that discrimination and hate crime might not just be on grounds of race alone; it could also be about age, disability, gender, religious belief or sexual orientation.

The posters, which have been designed by officers from the community safety department at Wishaw, will encourage local communities to report any incidents of this type to the police (via their local police office or the online reporting facility at www.strathclyde.police.uk) or to North Lanarkshire First Stop Shop.

The campaign is backed by North Lanarkshire Council, NHS Lanarkshire, Strathclyde Fire and Rescue, Broadwood Stadium Management, Show Racism the Red Card, Crimestoppers and the four senior football clubs in the area - Motherwell FC, Airdrie United FC, Albion Rovers FC and Clyde FC.

Crime Reduction Officer Dougie Denholm from Wishaw Police Office hopes that the posters will make people think twice about their actions and how they treat others. He said:

"As football is such a huge passion for so many people in the West of Scotland, we thought that it would be a good idea to base the posters on a football theme."

"Football is a marvellous medium for delivering such an important message to local communities and we are therefore extremely thankful that all four senior football clubs in North Lanarkshire are supporting our work."

Labels: criminal law, Discrimination

The High Court has awarded victory to a Sikh schoolgirl who was excluded from school for wearing a religious bangle, upholding a 25-year-old Law Lords ruling allowing Sikhs to wear items representing their faith.

The human rights group Liberty, representing 14-year-old Sarika Singh, successfully argued that Aberdare Girls' School in South Wales breached race relations and equality laws by excluding her since November 2007 for wearing the kara (a plain single bangle widely accepted as a central tenet of the Sikh race and religion).

Liberty filed the legal challenge in the High Court on 19 December 2007 which argued that the Governing Body of the Aberdare Girls' School had indirectly discriminated on the grounds of race contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976; breached the duty to promote equality under s71 Race Relations Act 1976; indirectly discriminated on the ground of religion or belief contrary to the Equality Act 2006; and breached the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 (the right to a private life).

Anna Fairclough, Liberty's Legal Officer representing the Singhs, said: "This common sense judgment makes clear you must have a very good reason before interfering with someone's religious freedom. Our great British traditions of religious tolerance and race equality have been rightly upheld today."

Noting that schools have a role to play in developing principles of religious and racial tolerance in its pupils, Mr Justice Silber said in his judgment: "Without those principles being adopted in a school, it is difficult to see how a cohesive and tolerant multi-cultural society can be built in this country ... I hope that the school will take all possible steps to ensure first that [she] can become quickly assimilated again within the school and second that there will be no bullying of her for racial or religious reasons."

Singh, of mixed Welsh/Punjabi origin, has been raised in the Sikh faith and was the only Sikh at the Aberdare Girls' School. The school's uniform policy prohibits the wearing of any jewellery other than a wrist watch and plain ear studs. When the school noticed that Singh was wearing the kara, she was isolated for two months, including during meals and physical education classes despite her offer to remove or cover the Kara during exercise, before being excluded entirely in November 2007.

The BBC News website has a good summary of recent School and religious symbol cases and, even on a cursory read, is is clear that they lack a cohesive thread. It is difficult to see why a kara bracelet is allowed, but a "purity ring" is not; or why jilbabs may be banned, but hijabs may not.

BTW, I would recommend not searching for the term "kara" on Google images - especially if your employers are interested in the kind of images you view on your work PC. Don't say i didn't warn you!

Labels: Children, Discrimination, Education Law, Human Rights, News

A Christian registrar from Islington who was bullied and threatened with the sack because of her religious beliefs on same sex unions has succeeded in her claims of unlawful discrimination by the council.

In its unanimous judgment, the employment tribunal found that Miss Lillian Ladele was directly discriminated against by Islington Council after she asked to be allowed not to perform civil partnership registrations. Miss Ladele's case was financed by The Christian Institute's Legal Defence Fund.

The various acts of direct discrimination included: failing to consider her for promotion; deciding to discipline her and threatening her with dismissal; concluding she had committed gross misconduct; failing to redress allegations that she was "homophobic" and labelling and treating her as homophobic; disregarding her concerns about her treatment; and failing to apply its anti-discrimination policies to gay colleagues who were mistreating her.

The tribunal also accepted that Islington Council had been able to deliver a "first-class" service to homosexual couples seeking civil partnerships, without Miss Ladele's involvement. Therefore, the Council's decision to require Miss Ladele to perform civil partnership registrations, contrary to her conscience, was an unlawful act of indirect religious discrimination.

The Council's actions also amounted to unlawful harassment. The judgment found that the Council "disregarded and displayed no respect for Ms Ladele's genuinely held religious belief," and it created an "intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her on grounds of her religion on belief."

Reacting to the decision, Miss Ladele said: "I am delighted at this decision. It is a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position to mine. Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs."

• Miss L Ladele v. London Borough of Islington Employment Tribunal Decision (London Central)

Labels: Discrimination, News