One of the profound changes of the 20th century has been the orientation, since 1948, to a human rights framework that seeks to exert universal application. The framework has been developed at inter-governmental and nation state level through political co-operation and legal regulation. States and public bodies find themselves increasingly judged according to international and domestic criteria relating to human rights. The human rights record of states has become not only the gateway to international benefits, but also the rationale for action against states accused of human rights infringements. The result of this paradigm shift has been that key legal, political and social issues of the 21st century are now contained within the human rights framework. Primacy is given to issues such as equality, freedom from discrimination, and racial, religious and social justice. In the UK a new Commission for Equality and Human Rights will place under one roof responsibility for all strands of human rights concerns – including race, religion and belief, employment, sex and sexual orientation, age and disability. There are currently serious public debates concerning the appropriate level of general individual freedoms for citizens to be balanced with increasing national security needs created by international terrorism. Human rights concerns also include rights to education, representative regional, community and national politics, and issues relating to urban deprivation in inner cities. Various human rights concerns can, of course, appear mutually inconsistent. Evangelicals find they are increasingly called upon to justify stances stated to be in contravention of human rights, as well as being regularly consulted for their views on balancing religious human rights with others. In an area increasingly the object of legal regulation, it is also possible for evangelical leaders to find that they are faced with a classic dilemma - to keep to the letter of the law and consequently act in ways that could undermine their beliefs - or effectively disregard the law if appropriate legal exceptions fail to be sanctioned by the state.
2.1.7.1 Regulation of Human Rights and Religious Freedom
UK law and policy in this area has been profoundly affected by a range of European, International and domestic legal regulations.[1] In 1998 the UK government enacted part of the 1951 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) into English law, giving rights to its citizens, for the first time, to bring legal actions and enforce convention rights in UK courts. Article 14 of the Convention[2] sets out a general “equality principle”. Protocol 12 to the Convention ensures that the “equality principle” is extended to apply to rights granted under national laws. And Article 9 of the Convention[3] recognises religious freedom as a human right to be protected.
The primary focus of the UK Human Rights Act is the State and public bodies who have duties imposed on them, rather than individuals. “Public body” is defined widely, and therefore where religious organisations exercise functions of a public nature they may be included in the definition of a public body for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. This confused state of affairs is currently under debate in the UK Parliament in ongoing equality legislation and the forthcoming Discrimination Law Review where it is being suggested that religious organisations in receipt of public funds for community projects will become public bodies for the purposes of those specific projects.
It is therefore now far more likely that religious groups could be found to infringe the law by doing no more than adhere to their beliefs. Arguably, aspects of those beliefs could consequently be deemed unlawful. The areas of most difficulty have been identified as employment discrimination, freedom of self-regulation, proselytism and freedom of speech and freedom to gather and protest, as well as contributions to society that receive public funding.
2.1.7.2. Judeo-Christian Tradition and Human Rights
Many submissions to the Inquiry were in broad agreement that the Judeo-Christian tradition underpinned the philosophy of the human rights paradigm - a belief shared by those working on the development of the European Constitution and the European Charter on Fundamental Human Rights. Although several submissions were of the opinion that the European Union caused problems in the area of religious liberty, yet at the same time it was acknowledged that within the European framework lies the basis and the need for finding common ground with other religions. From a purely UK judicial perspective, several submissions considered that the doctrine of human rights was actually part of a Christian ethical framework in any case.
Equally however, some submissions to the Commission were concerned that the ascendancy of the human rights paradigm has eclipsed the importance of the Church. Julian Rivers argued cogently that whilst public ethics remained Judeo-Christian at the level of context, they had been translated into the secularised language of human rights, and ultimately implemented as a distinctive human rights approach with the Christian dimension removed. A minority of submissions to the Commission considered that the Judeo-Christian basis for human rights was no longer publicly recognised.
Several submissions pointed out that Judeo-Christian ethics and the human rights paradigm were significantly different, noting that Judeo-Christian ethics were far more comprehensive than human rights. Whilst these submissions saw benefits to be obtained in a human rights ethical paradigm, at the same time they saw little value in arguing for any reversal of the concurrent clear shift away from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
2.1.7.3. Ascendancy of Human Rights Paradigm
The human rights paradigm has introduced a selfish era involving a vocabulary and even an industry of my right, and my equality. Moreover, the word ‘my’ denotes a paradox embedded within the human rights paradigm. Submissions by Scott-Joynt and Battye highlighted their perception of an imbalance in the direction of individualism demonstrated by the Human Rights Act. They were in broad agreement that there had been a clear shift away from Judeo-Christian ethics as the underlying rationale for public policy towards a secular human rights paradigm.
A further concern of some contributors (notably Summerton) is that Evangelicals are uneasy because liberty of conscience is increasingly interpreted by secularist government to exclude the legitimacy of Evangelical expressions of religious belief and conscience. Conflict therefore arises in relation to law and conscience. Some grounds for conflict arise because those responsible for drafting legislation either are ignorant of or choose not to safeguard religious liberties, and fail to consider issues of conscience and religious belief that take account of the Evangelical Alliance’s constituency as well as others. The result is that whilst liberal Christian tradition is not affected, increasingly the viewpoint of Evangelical Christianity is being placed firmly outside the boundaries of UK law by the legislators and courts, whilst Evangelical concerns have to be fought for, often on the back foot.
A major issue for evangelical Christians is the fact that some areas of social life about which they have strong faith-based views (e.g., sexuality, life issues, marriage, family) are now covered by domestic legislation based on individualistic and relativistic secularist ethics, as well as European and international human rights law. Often such legislation allows no exemption from its provisions on account of religious belief. CARE expresses concern that in this climate there can be cynical recourse to human rights legislation for the advancement of rights at the expense of religious belief.
[1] Of most relevance to the UK are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (though without legal force in the UK); The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1951, (partially incorporated into UK law in the Human Rights Act of 1998, and in fact effective for Scotland a year before England by virtue of Devolution legislation); the EU Charter on Fundamental Freedoms, Directive (2000/28/EC ).
[2] Article 14 of the ECHR is a general article and states that convention rights must be secured without discrimination on grounds “Such as colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, or other status”. Article 14 therefore creates an overriding equality principle tied to convention rights. Protocol 12 to the ECHR further provided that no one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on (inter-alia) the grounds of religion.
[3] Article 9(1) allows individuals the right to the “enjoyment” of their religion - although such “enjoyment” is constrained immediately by Article 9(2) allowing the state to limit religious freedom in the public interest (generally considered under the three headings of public policy, health and safety and state security).
