By Stephen Howard, Press Association

Friday, 12 February 2010

200 colleagues of suspended British Airways worker Nadia Eweida signed a petition to support her following her sacking for wearing a cross to work

A Christian lost her appeal today against a ruling which cleared British Airways of discrimination by stopping her wearing a cross visibly at work.

Nadia Eweida, 58, from Twickenham, south west London, had wanted three judges to overturn a decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that she was not a victim of indirect religion or belief discrimination.

Lord Justice Sedley, giving the ruling of the court, said her case of indirect discrimination was defeated by BA's case on justification.

He said: "This case has perhaps illustrated some of the problems which can arise when an individual asserts that a provision, criterion or practice adopted by an employer conflicts with beliefs which they hold but which may not only not be shared but may be opposed by others in the workforce.

"It is not unthinkable that a blanket ban may sometimes be the only fair solution."

Lord Justice Sedley said Miss Eweida is a devout practising Christian who worked part-time as a member of check-in staff since 1999.

She made complaints about incidents between 2003 and 2006 which she claimed showed anti-Christian bias on the part of BA.

The airline scrapped a high-necked uniform and introduced a new one in 2004 which could be open neck and prohibited the wearing of any visible item of adornment around the neck.

On at least three occasions she came to work with the cross visible under her uniform but concealed it when asked to do so.

But when she refused to cover up the cross, she was sent home and remained there unpaid from September 2006 to the following February.

Lord Justice Sedley said: "A storm of media attention, much of it hostile to the respondent, led the respondent to reconsider its uniform policy and to introduce an amended policy in 2007 which permitted staff to display a faith or charity symbol with the uniform."

Miss Eweida, who is backed by human rights group Liberty, returned to work after the policy change but claimed she was due around £120,000 in damages and lost wages.

Her QC, Karon Monaghan, told Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Carnwath and Lady Justice Smith, at the appeal hearing in London last month, that the issue was whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) correctly addressed the question of "particular disadvantage".

"We say that the EAT fell into error when it concluded that it was necessary to establish a group disadvantage among Christians generally for the purposes of the indirect discrimination provisions. The appellant's case is that it was not necessary."

She said it was sufficient for Miss Eweida to show - as she did - that she was placed under a particular disadvantage arising from her religious beliefs.

Lord Justice Sedley said indirect discrimination was not necessarily wrongful.

"The defendant employer may show that, in spite of its negative effect, the provision, criterion or practice, despite its unequal impact, constitutes a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."

He said Miss Eweida's objection was purely personal - "neither arising from any doctrine of her faith nor interfering with her observance of it and never raised by any other employee".

Liberty said in a statement that the appeal court had upheld the EAT's "startling" judgment of November 2008, which found that banning Ms Eweida from wearing a cross was not discriminatory because Christians "generally" do not consider wearing a cross as a requirement of their religion.

Corinna Ferguson, Liberty's legal officer who represents Ms Ewedia, said: "This is a disappointing judgment that will do little to build public confidence in equality laws protecting everyone.

"But this is just the sort of case that a Supreme Court is for and we have every hope that the highest court in the land will put Britain's long tradition of religious tolerance into modern legal practice."

Vincent Cable, Ms Eweida's MP and the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: "We fight on and we fight on to the Supreme Court over this important issue of principle and freedom of expression."

Lord Carey, former archbishop of Canterbury and supporter of Ms Eweida, said: "The news that Nadia Eweida's appeal has failed is a sad blow both to her personally, and the cause of religious liberties and freedoms.

"Her courage and endurance since 2006 when she was sent home from work for wearing a cross have been an inspiration to so many of us.

"Sadly, the failure of this appeal is likely to lead to further cases of religious discrimination.

"I believe it is not an exaggeration to say that people of faith are facing particular hardship in a period where different freedoms and rights are being tested against each other."

Carla Revere, vice president of the National Secular Society, said: "At the moment, employers are walking on eggshells in many areas which involve religion at work.

"We hope that this judgment will help them feel more confident in setting their employment policies in relation to dress codes and other religious requirements."

via The Independent

A brilliant counter-protest sign on the campus of Syracuse University.

The creator Chris Pesto writes:

I noticed two adults on campus holding signs that said “Homosexuality is a sin”. First, I would just like to say that I support people with their own opinions. I think that everyone is entitled to their right to think what they want. However, when someone comes on my campus, where I pay tuition to live, I don’t think it’s appropriate to rub such a hateful sign in someone’s face. I decided that because this woman thought it was okay to make me feel uncomfortable in my home, I would retaliate and make her feel just as uncomfortable, if not more.

This woman was wearing a ankle-length corduroy skirt, which, as we all know, is a fashion nono. So, in order to make her feel uncomfortable, I stood next to her and held a sign that said Corduroy skirts are a sin! I don’t think I have ever drawn so much attention in my life. SO many people asked to take a picture with me, I got laughs, high fives and there were the few that even cursed off the woman standing behind me.

As I drew interest to what was going on with myself and the woman with the hateful sign, I started to draw a crowd that stood with me in support. Before I knew it I had 100+ people holding signs for gay rights asking people to honk their horns to support. I was interviewed by a news station, and more than 5 student organization papers, and the post standard of syracuse.

I never expected anybody to come stand by me and support and I appreciate it so much that everyone came! It meant so much and it proved to those ignorant people that we aren’t afraid, and we will put up a fight.

I’m proud that Syracuse has such a homosexual friendly community.

by Tanya Macramalla on Friday December 25 2009

Apparently, yes.

Did you host Christmas dinner tonight? If so, that means there was tons of great food, but that also means there were tons of dishes. Did your hubby help you clean up? If he did, we would love to know if you found him sexier because of it. Why? According to a new study, the more time you spend doing chores, the more often you probably have sex with your partner.

In the study, published in the Journal of Family Issues, researchers looked at a sample of almost 7,000 married couples and found that people who work hard in one area of their lives tend to work, and play, hard in others.

According to Constance Gager, lead researcher and an assistant professor of family and child studies at Montclair State University, Montclair, N.J., the people who work hard make sure to set time aside for sex. "Rather than compromise their sex life, this group of go-getters seems to make sex a priority," she says.

This may not seem like too big of a surprise for men, as it has long been known that their participation in chores can lead to serious brownie points with the madame of the household. But it also turns out that the same applies to women.

Still, the researchers don't believe it's all about the chores. It's about the individual people.

"We're not saying that housework causes sex," said Gager, "rather there are groups who 'do it all' and other groups who do not."

Eunuchs are seen as social outcasts by Pakistan's largely conservative society

Pakistan's Supreme Court says eunuchs must be allowed to identify themselves as a distinct gender in order to ensure their rights.

The eunuchs, known as "hijras" in Pakistan, are men castrated at an early age for medical or social reasons.

The court said they should be issued with national identity cards showing their distinct gender.

The government has also been ordered to take steps to ensure they are entitled to inherit property.

'Respect and identity'

There are estimated to be about 300,000 hijras in Pakistan and they are generally shunned by the largely Muslim conservative society.

They tend to live together in slum communities, surviving through begging and by dancing at weddings and carnivals.

A hijra association has welcomed the order, saying it is "a major step giving respect and identity in society".

Indian authorities last month agreed to list eunuchs and transgender people by using the term "others", distinct from males and females, on electoral rolls and voter identity cards, after a long-running campaign by the members of the community.

Tatchell stands down as Green candidate

Brain injuries from Mugabe and Moscow bashings thwart bid to be Oxford East MP

London – 16 December 2009

“It is with great regret and reluctance that I am standing down as the Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford East. My brain injuries from the Mugabe and Moscow bashings mean that I would not be able to campaign effectively in the general election or do the duties required of an MP, if I was elected,” human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell announced today.

“It would not be right for me to seek election if I could not do the job of an MP to the high standards that I want and that Oxford East voters have a right to expect.

“If I was elected, I could manage the parliamentary duties or the constituency work. But my health is not strong enough for me to do both.

“This is huge disappointment and frustration. Oxford East is a target Green seat. In the county elections in June, the Greens were neck-and-neck with the Liberal Democrats as the main challenger to Labour. The European elections saw the Greens win in Oxford East, well ahead of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories.

“The brain damage caused by Mugabe’s thugs in Brussels in 2001 and by neo-Nazis in Moscow in 2007 has been compounded by head injuries in an accident while I was campaigning in Devon in July. A bus on which I was travelling swerved and braked sharply. I was thrown forward, hitting my head on a metal handrail.

“The injuries don’t stop me from campaigning but I am slower, make more mistakes, get tired easily and take longer to do things. My memory, concentation, balance and coordination have been adversley affected. I can’t campaign at the pace I used to.

“I was selected as the Green Party candidate for Oxford East in April 2007. A month later, I was badly beaten around the head by neo-Nazis during an attempted Gay Pride parade in Moscow.

See here:

http://www.petertatchell.net/international/moscowgayarrests.htm

“This exacerbated the brain damage caused when I was bashed unconscious by President Mugabe’s bodyguards in Brussels in 2001, after attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of the Zimbabwean leader on charges of torture.

See here:

http://www.petertatchell.net/international/mugabearrest.htm

“Following the Moscow assault, I never rested and recuperated. I carried on campaigning, with a very heavy schedule of commitments in Oxford East. After several months, I was severely exhausted. This stress and exhaustion probably intensified the damage and thwarted my recovery.

“I have postponed making this announcement for several months, in the hope that I might get better and be able to carry on as the Green candidate. Unfortunately, my condition has not improved. If anything, it is worse.

“There is, however, a glimmer of hope for the future. The medical advice is that if I slow down and reduce my workload my condition may improve in a year or so. On the downside, I am unlikely to ever recover fully. Some of the damage is probably permanent.

“I don’t regret a thing. Getting a thrashing and brain injuries was not what I had expected or wanted. But I was aware of the risks. Taking risks is sometimes necessary, in order to challenge injustice. My beatings had the positive effect of helping draw international attention to the violent, repressive nature of the Russian and Zimbabwean regimes. I’m glad of that.

“My physical inconveniences are nothing by comparison to the far worse beatings inflicted on human rights defenders in countries like Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Columbia, Sudan and Burma. These heroic activists often end up jailed or dead. I count myself lucky.

“The Oxford Green Party expects to select a new parliamentary candidate in January. That person will have my wholehearted support. I intend to campaign with them during the general election.

“I would like to thank members of Oxford Green Party for their immense kindness, support, and generosity during my two and a half years as their candidate. It has been a pleasure working with the Oxford Greens and I wish them future success,” said Mr Tatchell.

A great pity, but understandable given the circumstances...

Exclusion of heterosexual couples challenged

Bid for civil partnership equality backed by Peter Tatchell

London, UK – 23 November 2009

A London straight couple, Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, plan to challenge the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships by filing an application at Islington Registry Office in London this Tuesday, 24 November at 10.30am.

They want “heterosexual equality.”

The denial of civil partnerships to straight couples is, they say, “discriminatory and perpetuates legal inequality.”

Doyle and Freeman expect to be turned down by the registrar but they plan to get the refusal in writing, with view to taking legal advice and appealing the refusal.

“If necessary, we are ready to take our appeal all the way to the European Court of Human Rights,” said Mr Freeman and Ms Doyle.

The couple’s equality bid is backed by the gay rights group OutRage! and by human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. He will join them on 24 November when they give notice of their civil partnership at Islington Town Hall’s Registry Office.

Mr Tatchell commented:

“We are against both homophobic and heterophobic laws. In a democratic society, everyone should be treated equally. There should be no legal discrimination. The ban on same-sex civil marriage and on opposite-sex civil partnerships is a form of sexual apartheid. It is one law for straight couples and another law for gay partners. Two wrongs don’t make a right,” he said.

Outlining the reasons why they decided to opt for a civil partnership instead of marriage, Katherine Doyle said:

“We have been together for three and a half years and would like to formalise our relationship. Because we feel alienated from the patriarchal traditions of marriage, we would prefer to have a civil partnership. As a mixed-sex couple, we are banned by law from doing so. By filing an application for civil partnership, we are seeking to challenge this discriminatory law.

“Our decision is also motivated by the fact that we object to the way same-sex couples are prohibited from getting married. If we got married we would be colluding with the segregation that exists in matrimonial law between gay civil partnerships and straight civil
marriage. We don't want to take advantage of civil marriage when it is an option that is denied to our lesbian and gay friends,” she said.

Doyle and Freeman will be giving notice of their intention to form a civil partnership at 10.30am, on Tuesday 24th November 2009 at Islington Registry Office, Islington Town Hall, Upper Street, London, N1 2UD

Tom Freeman (25, civil servant) said:

“We want to secure official status for our relationship in a way that supports the call for complete equality and is free of the negative connotations of marriage.

“If we cannot have a civil partnership, we will not get married. On a point of principle, we will remain unmarried until opposite sex couples can have a civil partnership and same-sex couples can have a civil marriage.

“We are taking this stand against discrimination and in support of legal equality for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

“The ‘separate but equal’ system which segregates couples according to their sexuality is not equal at all. All loving couples should have access to the same institutions, regardless of sexuality. There should be parity of respect and rights,” he said.

Katherine Doyle (25, civil servant) added:

“We don’t like the institution of marriage. We would much prefer a civil partnership. It is time there was full legal equality, with both civil marriage and civil partnerships open to gay and straight couples. We want a choice and all other couples should also have a choice, irrespective of their sexuality.

“Just as lesbian and gay couples should be able to have a civil marriage, civil partnerships should be available to straight couples who don’t like the institution of marriage,” she said.

Under UK law, same-sex couples are banned from civil marriage and heterosexual couples are banned from civil partnerships (called civil unions in the US).

Mr Tatchell commented:

“The ban on heterosexual civil partnerships is heterophobic. It is disciminatory and offensive. I want to see it ended, so that straight couples like Tom and Katherine can have the option of a civil partnership.

“I applaud their challenge to this unjust legislation,” he said.

Lesbian couples who have children through fertility treatment can now register both their names on the birth certificate, following a change in the law.

The change, which applies to couples in England and Wales beginning fertility treatment on or after 6 April 2009, confers legal parenthood on a biological mother's female partner for the first time.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 granted lesbian couples equal rights as parents. The new regulations on the registration of births and deaths came into force today, although no child covered by the change will have been born yet.

Lord Brett, the Home Office minister, said: "This positive change means that, for the first time, female couples who have a child using fertility treatment have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts to be shown as parents in the birth registration. It is vital that we afford equality wherever we can in society, especially as family circumstances continue to change. This is an important step forward in that process."

The Home Office said birth certificates would be made available with two "parent" sections, rather than mother and father.

Ruth Hunt, the head of policy and research of the lesbian, gay and bisexual group Stonewall, said life for lesbian families would become fairer and easier.

"As the law improves to provide further equality, knowing your new rights will help people make full use of the services they're entitled to," she said. "And, if discrimination occurs, the same knowledge can help them demand fair treatment. Now lesbian couples in the UK who make a considered decision to start a loving family will finally be afforded equal access to services they help fund as taxpayers."

Critics said the change in the law was a blow against the traditional family model.

"If we want to build a stable society, a mother and father and children works as the best model," the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries told the BBC. "We should be striving towards repairing and reinforcing marriage. I think this move sends out the exact opposite message."

Geraldine Smith, a Labour MP, agreed: "To have a birth certificate with two mothers and no father is just madness."

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said 728 lesbians underwent IVF treatment between 1999 and 2006.