Felix Ngole wins appeal in victory for Christian freedoms
Felix Ngole wins appeal in victory for Christian freedoms
Here is the actual judgement by the Court of Appeal: PDF link
This is a key paragraph (Section 5, Paragraph 10, on page 3 in the document):
The University wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that ‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds. In the present case, there was positive evidence to suggest that the Appellant had never discriminated on such grounds in the past and was not likely to do so in the future (because, as he explained, the Bible prohibited him from discriminating against anybody).
I've been watching a similar case playing out here in Australia, involving Rugby Australia's sacking of Israel Folau. I've had a nagging feeling that posting “homosexuals will go to Hell” on social media doesn't count as discrimination against LGBT people. It's interesting to see a court say this.
As counter-intuitive as it might be for a gay man to say, I don't think either Israel Folau or Felix Ngole did anything wrong. As one Australian commentator pointed out, these Christian views are even allowed to be taught in government schools. Repeating these views on social media can't be wrong in that context.
Of course, it helps that I don't believe in this alleged “Hell” (or any other religious/supernatural concept), so someone telling me that I'm “going to Hell” has no meaning to me. To me, it's just a fancy way of saying “I disapprove of what you do” - and, to quote the fabulous Miss Vida Boheme and Miss Noxeema Jackson:
The court did not say that. They said his comments were not acceptable, but that the punishment (removing him from the course, preventing him from ever working in a regulated profession, without giving him any warnings) was disproportionate.
103: "It must have been clear that offensive language and the expression of discriminatory views would be unacceptable"
106: "On the other hand, the legitimate aim of such regulation must extend so far as to seek to ensure that reasonable service users, of all kinds,perceive they will be treated with dignity and without discrimination. Social work service users cannot usually choose their social worker. The use of aggressive or offensive language in condemnation of homosexuality, or homosexual acts, would certainly be capable of undermining confidence and bringing the profession of social work into disrepute. As the Guidance makes clear, the Appellant had an obligation not to allow his views about a person’s lifestyle to prejudice his interactions with service users by creating the impression that he would discriminate against the"
111: "Crucially, at no stage did those in charge of the disciplinary process make the University make it clear that it was the manner and language in which the Appellant had expressed his views which was the problem or discuss or offer him guidance as to how he might more appropriately and moderately express his views on homosexuality in a public forum and in a way in which it would be clear that he would never discriminate on such grounds or allow his views to interfere with his work as a professional"
They're not allowed in English schools.
They did. They literally wrote it in the section I quoted:
They literally said that posting "gays will go to Hell" is not an indication of discrimination.
This is missing some context. The judges are discussing whether the "the HCPC Regulations and Guidance were insufficiently clear or precise". They found that the regulations were sufficiently clear or precise regarding the expression of discriminatory views.
However, it's important to note that they did not say that Mr Ngole's posts constituted discriminatory views. That connection is not made. (If the connection was made, and Mr Ngole's posts were considered discriminatory, then his dismissal would have been valid, and the Court of Appeal would not have rejected the previous findings.)
This section is about someone's perception of discrimination, not actual discrimination. Even though Mr Ngole's posts were not discriminatory in and of themselves (see above), they could lead other people to believe that Mr Ngole might be discriminatory towards them. This perception of possible discrimination is a problem, but it's not actual discrimination.
Again, this is about perception of possible discrimination, rather than actual discrimination. Mr Ngole could have worded his same views in a different way, in order to prevent other people believing he might discriminate against them.
EDIT: Formatting.
This is the court telling the FTP Panel that they can't make a decision on probability of future discriminatory working based only on someone saying "homosexuality is a sin". It's not saying that it's okay for registered professionals to say that, or that universities cannot take action against students who say that. That action cannot be immediate expulsion (which would be suitable in cases where discriminatory working had been demonstrated), but it can be education and instruction and warnings, escalating up to expulsion if the behaviour doesn't change.
The court was clear that his speech wasn't expression of religion. They said that freedom of speech is not unqualified. They agreed that the university should take disciplinary action, but should have tried warnings and education before going to expulsion. The judges rejected the appellant's arguments. This judgment is saying that the university assumed he would not change his wording, and that it was this assumption that is wrong.
Para 6:
Para 146:
This last paragraph means that he goes back before the Fitness to Practise committee for a new hearing. That new hearing is to decide whether the way he expresses his views are compatible with professional registration. If he agrees to modify the way he expresses his views he may be allowed to continue to practice but if he doesn't agree to modify his language he will lose his registration.
Hold on.
The court of appeal were very clear that Ngole was wrong to say what he did in the way that he did, and that the court would have supported some form of disciplinary action, but that removing Ngole from the educational course without previous warnings was disproportionately harsh.
The appeal court said the first judge was right to say that Ngole's religious rights were not interfered with. Saying that homosexuality is a sin and quoting the Bible would be covered by freedom of speech, not expression of religion.
Another part of the judgment is that if Ngole ever says these things to his service users he would be discriminating against them and disciplinary action would be warranted, but until that time we can't use his comments as a prediction of future discriminatory working.
See also the comments of the comments of the judges about the Christian Legal Centre barrister:
This is yet another case where the CLC have provided incoherent legal advice. In this case it didn't cause much harm, but on other cases it caused considerable distress to the people they were representing.
That's fine. The bible does, in fact, define homosexuality as a sin.
It's also my view that I am free to express without legal ramifications that the religious concept of "sin" does not necessarily equate to "immorality" and simply means "disobedience to religious doctrine".