Monday, February 28, 2011

Hierachy of rights

It seems according to this snippet today from the Johns case that we do indeed have a hierachy of group rights.
But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.
So gentles, which group should be at the top of the rights tree, and why? Is my group grievance more important than your group grievance?

And, forgive my ignorance, where in our constitutional law is this stated? And who set it up? And why?

Update
I note this at the end of PA report
The judges also ruled Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights only provided a "qualified right" to manifest religious belief.
Looking at Article 9
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
I guess the judges feel that this couple threaten the 'rights and freedoms of others'
Eunice and Owen Johns, aged 62 and 65, from Oakwood, Derby, went to court after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a "homosexual lifestyle" was acceptable.
Dangerous stuff, up their with death threats and so forth.

3 comments:

Lawson Narse said...

But surely, they(the Johns)are themselves the subject of discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation?

Gawain Towler said...

Now you are just trying to confuse matters

Anoneumouse said...

Human Rights Act 1998 Section 11 Safeguard for existing human rights.

A person’s reliance on a Convention right does not restrict—

(a) any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom; or

Can I remind you that the 39 articles of religion as found in the book of common prayer is still good law in this country.

Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion is quite clear.

"The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction".

The Thirty - nine Articles of Religion were drawn up by the church in convocation in 1563

Subscription to them by the clergy was ordered by act of Parliament in 1571. The Subscription (Thirty-Nine Articles) Act (1571), 13 Elizabeth, Cap. 12

The 39 Articles can be found in the Book of Common Prayer, which has not been repealed and are part of the British constitution through the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Act of Union with Scotland 1707

Clergy of the Church of England are still required to acknowledge that the Articles are "agreeable to the Word of God," CANON C15 OF THE DECLARATION OF ASSENT

Twitter