Whatever one thinks of this ruling, it’s important to note that it’s not the couple’s beliefs as such that are at issue, but the implications of those beliefs for their foster child. The pivotal moment seems to be this one:
“when the question had been put to Owen, he responded by saying that he would ‘gently turn them round’. ”
It seems to me that if he had tried to make the case that, while he did not personally approve of homosexuality, he thought he would be able to put that aside and lovingly support a child who turned out to be gay the outcome of the case might have been different.
I am concerned with what I read about how this case has been conducted.
Reading paras #22 on, including:
[blockquote] Second, neither the claimants nor the defendant have filed any evidence. The facts relied on by the claimants are merely those set out in fairly summary form in their statement of grounds. Certain facts are asserted by the defendant in its detailed grounds for contesting the claim. Thus the defendant says that it has approved foster carers who are very committed Christians who hold to orthodox beliefs – whatever that means – and devout Muslim carers who are similarly committed to their religion, but who in both instances are able to value diversity notwithstanding their strongly held religious beliefs. But again there is no evidence in support. So far as concerns the claimants and the defendant, the court is left to determine the case on the basis of various documents included in the trial bundle, including those from which we have quoted.[/blockquote]
and then in the conclusions at #107-108
[blockquote]We have stated our misgivings about the exercise of the jurisdiction to consider whether to grant any (and if so what) declaratory relief. The defendant has taken no decision and there is likely to be a broad range of factual contexts for reaching a particular decision, the legality of which will be highly fact-sensitive. Moreover, the parties have: (a) been unable to agree on an appropriately focused question for the court to address, (b) each identified questions that do not raise a question of law that can be answered with anything approaching a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and (c) furnished the court with no evidence.
On behalf of the claimants it is said that the material the Commission filed in evidence is highly controversial, but no rebutting evidence has been filed. Mr Diamond has sought to rely on material which is unsupported by any evidential evaluation. We are not in a position to assess, let alone evaluate, any of the material relied on. This, together with the difficulties we identify in [107], has meant that such conclusions as we have been able to reach in [90]-[105] must be seen as qualified in the light of the nature of the material before us and the way the case was presented.[/blockquote]
I do have real concern about the way this appeal was conducted from the Johns’ point of view. The Court had to ask them to clarify the declaration they were asking for and had some difficulty establishing what their case in law in relation to the appeal regarding the conduct of the local authority, who pretty clearly had set them up, and on the law is.
It may be satisfying to use Court cases as a means of airing complaints, but if you do not focus on the issue rather than campaigning, it is unlikely that you will be successful. In real terms to lose by not putting forward the best case you can in law, is very damaging, because the case then becomes precedent for other decisions. It is better not to bring a case or appeal rather than to make a mess of it, thereby queering the pitch, so to speak, for other people.
That said, the Court has clearly ignored much evidence provided, and taken a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to things, which may be appealable.
There is a bizarre separation made by the Courts between people’s right to hold religious views and living their lives in accordance with those views:
Para 99
[blockquote]If the defendant’s treatment is the result of the claimants’ expressed antipathy, objection to, or disapproval of homosexuality and same-sex relationships it is clear, on authorities which bind us, namely the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Ladele and McFarlane, that it would not be because of their religious belief. Moreover, the defendant’s treatment of the claimants would not be less favourable than that afforded other persons who, for reasons other than the religious views of the claimants, expressed objection to, or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships contrary to the National Minimum Standards for Fostering and the defendant’s various policies[/blockquote]
It seems to me that this schizophrenic requirement for Christian foster-parents is really just redefining the intention of respecting religious views into some sort of “you are entitled to your own views but you are not entitled to live by them where it impacts on your interaction with society”, which is a variation on “they are entitled to their views so long as they don’t preach them”.
Whatever the shortcomings of the way this case has been dealt with by the parties and the Courts, we are now left with this conclusion as a consequence:
Para 109
[blockquote]For the reasons given in [107] we have concluded that we should make no order. Moreover, in the light of the cumulative effect of our conclusions in [90]-[106], in particular, contrary to the submissions on behalf of the claimants, our conclusions that the attitudes of potential foster carers to sexuality are relevant when considering an application for approval and as to the effect of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Islington London Borough Council v Ladele (Liberty intervening) [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, and McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 880, we have also concluded that we should not grant permission.[/blockquote]
Pretty unsatisfactory all round, and not a case the conduct of which has done Christians any favors, but in truth the problem lies with the legislation put in place by the last government, and the failure of assurances given at the time about its impact upon people with religious convictions.
We have moved from a situation a few years ago where it was argued that gay parents should be considered suitable to foster, to one now where the only people who will be allowed to foster children will be those who are either gay or gay affirming and who will have no contradictary religious views, or be prepared to put them on one side in living their lives.
I would characterize the decision as outcome based, in addition to idiosyncratic.
IMHO, the take-away message is that a person may be entitled to Christian beliefs so long as those beliefs are never manifested in ‘unacceptable’ behavior, teaching, communication, parenting, etc. Of course, to turn around gently means to lead one to repentance.
The range of sinful behavior is not limited to illegal activities, but includes much activity that is currently socially acceptable and comfortable – this accepted sinful behavior is now protected by law, and traditional Christian parenting is proscribed. Christians who would like to be foster parents must accept a gag order on their faith in order to be suitable to the state.
Despite the court’s many unsupported assertions to the contrary, this boils down to religious discrimination.
I am alarmed that the decision takes for granted the sexualization of young children. Just how does a child exhibit that he or she is homosexual? Would a girl having a crush on a female teacher be evidence? Would a boy’s refusal to sit with girls be proof that he was gay? The whole premise behind the decision is to put it frankly a pedophile’s dream come true.
Foster children are usually put in care because horrednous conditions in their own home make it detrimental to their physical and emotional health to stay there. Wouldn’t it be more likely that any sexual acting out they engage in would be a warning sign of stress and not a indicatator of their permanent sexual orientation? Especially if the adults did not set up boundaries between their should be private behavior and the children.
It is also inexcusable with some very prominent failures to its discredit that this is what social services worries about.
“Christians who would like to be foster parents must accept a gag order”
I think you may be right (assuming, of course, you mean Christians who share these people’s views on homosexuality). Once society decides what is “normal” it’s hard to know where to draw the line with religions who disagree, especially where the wellbeing of children is at issue. I presume Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses would also be excluded from foster parenting in the UK, unless they agreed to seek conventional medical treatment for their children “until they are old enough to decide for themselves,” as the saying goes. Would that not be the situation for members of these two groups if they applied to be foster parents in the US?
Paula, I think you’re reading ‘child’ and thinking preadolescent. I think since the Johns were considered primarily for respite care, there’s a strong likelihood they would be housing older teenagers (15/16) rather than, say, a 5 year old. I don’t think it’s sexualizing “children” to think that an adolescent would be openly gay or struggling with sexuality.
I don’t know much about the particulars of this case other than the spin(s) I am reading in the media. Some of the things I have read suggest that this couple wasn’t simply the truth loving, peaceful Christian family they claim to be, and were in fact somewhat extremist in their views and wanting media attention in the worst way. I have no idea how accurate those views are, so I am hesitant to speak to that one way or the other.
Alleged motives aside, I find the logic of this case decision to be disturbing, however. The judges seem to be wagging their fingers about the secularist principles that, they claim, define the nation. In other words, they make clear their desire to steer Britain in the direction of their own defining characteristic.
This also seems incredibly close to “thought crime.” You can have these opinions provided you don’t ever vocalize them, and even then the supposition is that they are wrong headed to the point you are disqualified from things like foster parenting.
To take this logic to the next logical bus stop, take out the homosexuality focus and simply apply the logic to faith in general. Can people of faith be barred from fostering children simply because they have faith? If secularity is, of itself, the defining characteristic of Britain, than a particular faith that believes it is more important to the soul that secularism becomes inherently suspect even to the point of being a threat to the State (See: Ancient Rome, Offering Incense to Emperor, Christian persecutions).
Tolerance and diversity mean accepting all people, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. However, when you get to the point that certain views are more tolerated than other, this is the point where militant secularism begins to consume itself because Secularism itself becomes the goal. All other philosophies or religions must bow in silence to the sacred cow, and when they don’t, they get thrown into the fire that was originally intended for bigots in the first place.
Isaac,
your point is relevent only if the finding is specifically limited to the facts of the case (in a case with no evidence filed!) and held to be unusable for precedent. Even if permissible in the UK legal system, the real world has demonstrated such restrictions are impossible.
Would it not have been wiser to direct the agency placing the children to take into account both the child’s and the foster parents’ histories and perspectives before deciding to make an uncompatable placement?
I guess just ruling that Christians aren’t good enough is good enough. “Wise in their own eyes,” indeed.
That’s one of my questions about the whole affair that isn’t adding up for me. It seems like both sides here have blown everything out of proportion. On the one hand, you have a stable couple who would otherwise be a good caregiving couple. Why were they placed with this child to begin with? On the governmental side, why wasn’t a case worker early on simply sit down and work out an agreement with a child where this isn’t an issue? The whole affair just seems out of perspective.
8.
I wasn’t addressing the case as such, I was addressing Paula’s comment about “sexualizing” children. I didn’t make any point relevant to whether or not the case was decided correctly.
Isaac, I recall reading that the case did mention children age 5-8 as being possible candidates for fostering with the Jones. I’ll try to find the passage.
It does not mention age. However it does not say the ruling only applies to restricting their fostering to adolescents who have declared themselves to be gay. It does not concerns of sexual orientation to adolescents. It reads children without distinction of age level. In some places it reads children and young persons.
The ruling is indeed taking for granted that children (which is anyone under 18) are gay or straight without any consideration of how this is determined or whether it is valid given the circumstances of the child’s life and background. Children act out sexually for many non sexual reasons. To say a child is gay or not gay at such an early age is in my mind a crime against them. It does leave them vulnerable to predators.
Whatever one thinks of this ruling, it’s important to note that it’s not the couple’s beliefs as such that are at issue, but the implications of those beliefs for their foster child. The pivotal moment seems to be this one:
“when the question had been put to Owen, he responded by saying that he would ‘gently turn them round’. ”
It seems to me that if he had tried to make the case that, while he did not personally approve of homosexuality, he thought he would be able to put that aside and lovingly support a child who turned out to be gay the outcome of the case might have been different.
I am concerned with what I read about how this case has been conducted.
Reading paras #22 on, including:
[blockquote] Second, neither the claimants nor the defendant have filed any evidence. The facts relied on by the claimants are merely those set out in fairly summary form in their statement of grounds. Certain facts are asserted by the defendant in its detailed grounds for contesting the claim. Thus the defendant says that it has approved foster carers who are very committed Christians who hold to orthodox beliefs – whatever that means – and devout Muslim carers who are similarly committed to their religion, but who in both instances are able to value diversity notwithstanding their strongly held religious beliefs. But again there is no evidence in support. So far as concerns the claimants and the defendant, the court is left to determine the case on the basis of various documents included in the trial bundle, including those from which we have quoted.[/blockquote]
and then in the conclusions at #107-108
[blockquote]We have stated our misgivings about the exercise of the jurisdiction to consider whether to grant any (and if so what) declaratory relief. The defendant has taken no decision and there is likely to be a broad range of factual contexts for reaching a particular decision, the legality of which will be highly fact-sensitive. Moreover, the parties have: (a) been unable to agree on an appropriately focused question for the court to address, (b) each identified questions that do not raise a question of law that can be answered with anything approaching a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and (c) furnished the court with no evidence.
On behalf of the claimants it is said that the material the Commission filed in evidence is highly controversial, but no rebutting evidence has been filed. Mr Diamond has sought to rely on material which is unsupported by any evidential evaluation. We are not in a position to assess, let alone evaluate, any of the material relied on. This, together with the difficulties we identify in [107], has meant that such conclusions as we have been able to reach in [90]-[105] must be seen as qualified in the light of the nature of the material before us and the way the case was presented.[/blockquote]
I do have real concern about the way this appeal was conducted from the Johns’ point of view. The Court had to ask them to clarify the declaration they were asking for and had some difficulty establishing what their case in law in relation to the appeal regarding the conduct of the local authority, who pretty clearly had set them up, and on the law is.
It may be satisfying to use Court cases as a means of airing complaints, but if you do not focus on the issue rather than campaigning, it is unlikely that you will be successful. In real terms to lose by not putting forward the best case you can in law, is very damaging, because the case then becomes precedent for other decisions. It is better not to bring a case or appeal rather than to make a mess of it, thereby queering the pitch, so to speak, for other people.
That said, the Court has clearly ignored much evidence provided, and taken a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to things, which may be appealable.
There is a bizarre separation made by the Courts between people’s right to hold religious views and living their lives in accordance with those views:
Para 99
[blockquote]If the defendant’s treatment is the result of the claimants’ expressed antipathy, objection to, or disapproval of homosexuality and same-sex relationships it is clear, on authorities which bind us, namely the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Ladele and McFarlane, that it would not be because of their religious belief. Moreover, the defendant’s treatment of the claimants would not be less favourable than that afforded other persons who, for reasons other than the religious views of the claimants, expressed objection to, or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships contrary to the National Minimum Standards for Fostering and the defendant’s various policies[/blockquote]
It seems to me that this schizophrenic requirement for Christian foster-parents is really just redefining the intention of respecting religious views into some sort of “you are entitled to your own views but you are not entitled to live by them where it impacts on your interaction with society”, which is a variation on “they are entitled to their views so long as they don’t preach them”.
Whatever the shortcomings of the way this case has been dealt with by the parties and the Courts, we are now left with this conclusion as a consequence:
Para 109
[blockquote]For the reasons given in [107] we have concluded that we should make no order. Moreover, in the light of the cumulative effect of our conclusions in [90]-[106], in particular, contrary to the submissions on behalf of the claimants, our conclusions that the attitudes of potential foster carers to sexuality are relevant when considering an application for approval and as to the effect of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Islington London Borough Council v Ladele (Liberty intervening) [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, and McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 880, we have also concluded that we should not grant permission.[/blockquote]
Pretty unsatisfactory all round, and not a case the conduct of which has done Christians any favors, but in truth the problem lies with the legislation put in place by the last government, and the failure of assurances given at the time about its impact upon people with religious convictions.
We have moved from a situation a few years ago where it was argued that gay parents should be considered suitable to foster, to one now where the only people who will be allowed to foster children will be those who are either gay or gay affirming and who will have no contradictary religious views, or be prepared to put them on one side in living their lives.
I would characterize the decision as outcome based, in addition to idiosyncratic.
IMHO, the take-away message is that a person may be entitled to Christian beliefs so long as those beliefs are never manifested in ‘unacceptable’ behavior, teaching, communication, parenting, etc. Of course, to turn around gently means to lead one to repentance.
The range of sinful behavior is not limited to illegal activities, but includes much activity that is currently socially acceptable and comfortable – this accepted sinful behavior is now protected by law, and traditional Christian parenting is proscribed. Christians who would like to be foster parents must accept a gag order on their faith in order to be suitable to the state.
Despite the court’s many unsupported assertions to the contrary, this boils down to religious discrimination.
🙄
I am alarmed that the decision takes for granted the sexualization of young children. Just how does a child exhibit that he or she is homosexual? Would a girl having a crush on a female teacher be evidence? Would a boy’s refusal to sit with girls be proof that he was gay? The whole premise behind the decision is to put it frankly a pedophile’s dream come true.
Foster children are usually put in care because horrednous conditions in their own home make it detrimental to their physical and emotional health to stay there. Wouldn’t it be more likely that any sexual acting out they engage in would be a warning sign of stress and not a indicatator of their permanent sexual orientation? Especially if the adults did not set up boundaries between their should be private behavior and the children.
It is also inexcusable with some very prominent failures to its discredit that this is what social services worries about.
“Christians who would like to be foster parents must accept a gag order”
I think you may be right (assuming, of course, you mean Christians who share these people’s views on homosexuality). Once society decides what is “normal” it’s hard to know where to draw the line with religions who disagree, especially where the wellbeing of children is at issue. I presume Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses would also be excluded from foster parenting in the UK, unless they agreed to seek conventional medical treatment for their children “until they are old enough to decide for themselves,” as the saying goes. Would that not be the situation for members of these two groups if they applied to be foster parents in the US?
Paula, I think you’re reading ‘child’ and thinking preadolescent. I think since the Johns were considered primarily for respite care, there’s a strong likelihood they would be housing older teenagers (15/16) rather than, say, a 5 year old. I don’t think it’s sexualizing “children” to think that an adolescent would be openly gay or struggling with sexuality.
I don’t know much about the particulars of this case other than the spin(s) I am reading in the media. Some of the things I have read suggest that this couple wasn’t simply the truth loving, peaceful Christian family they claim to be, and were in fact somewhat extremist in their views and wanting media attention in the worst way. I have no idea how accurate those views are, so I am hesitant to speak to that one way or the other.
Alleged motives aside, I find the logic of this case decision to be disturbing, however. The judges seem to be wagging their fingers about the secularist principles that, they claim, define the nation. In other words, they make clear their desire to steer Britain in the direction of their own defining characteristic.
This also seems incredibly close to “thought crime.” You can have these opinions provided you don’t ever vocalize them, and even then the supposition is that they are wrong headed to the point you are disqualified from things like foster parenting.
To take this logic to the next logical bus stop, take out the homosexuality focus and simply apply the logic to faith in general. Can people of faith be barred from fostering children simply because they have faith? If secularity is, of itself, the defining characteristic of Britain, than a particular faith that believes it is more important to the soul that secularism becomes inherently suspect even to the point of being a threat to the State (See: Ancient Rome, Offering Incense to Emperor, Christian persecutions).
Tolerance and diversity mean accepting all people, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. However, when you get to the point that certain views are more tolerated than other, this is the point where militant secularism begins to consume itself because Secularism itself becomes the goal. All other philosophies or religions must bow in silence to the sacred cow, and when they don’t, they get thrown into the fire that was originally intended for bigots in the first place.
Isaac,
your point is relevent only if the finding is specifically limited to the facts of the case (in a case with no evidence filed!) and held to be unusable for precedent. Even if permissible in the UK legal system, the real world has demonstrated such restrictions are impossible.
Would it not have been wiser to direct the agency placing the children to take into account both the child’s and the foster parents’ histories and perspectives before deciding to make an uncompatable placement?
I guess just ruling that Christians aren’t good enough is good enough. “Wise in their own eyes,” indeed.
No 9,
That’s one of my questions about the whole affair that isn’t adding up for me. It seems like both sides here have blown everything out of proportion. On the one hand, you have a stable couple who would otherwise be a good caregiving couple. Why were they placed with this child to begin with? On the governmental side, why wasn’t a case worker early on simply sit down and work out an agreement with a child where this isn’t an issue? The whole affair just seems out of perspective.
8.
I wasn’t addressing the case as such, I was addressing Paula’s comment about “sexualizing” children. I didn’t make any point relevant to whether or not the case was decided correctly.
RE: “I think you may be right (assuming, of course, you mean Christians who share these people’s views on homosexuality).”
Tired meant all those Christians who believe the Gospel.
Isaac, I recall reading that the case did mention children age 5-8 as being possible candidates for fostering with the Jones. I’ll try to find the passage.
It does not mention age. However it does not say the ruling only applies to restricting their fostering to adolescents who have declared themselves to be gay. It does not concerns of sexual orientation to adolescents. It reads children without distinction of age level. In some places it reads children and young persons.
The ruling is indeed taking for granted that children (which is anyone under 18) are gay or straight without any consideration of how this is determined or whether it is valid given the circumstances of the child’s life and background. Children act out sexually for many non sexual reasons. To say a child is gay or not gay at such an early age is in my mind a crime against them. It does leave them vulnerable to predators.