The Government suffered an embarrassing setback in its efforts to extend homosexual rights yesterday when a judge quashed harassment laws introduced in Northern Ireland.In a ruling hailed as "significant" by Christian groups, the High Court judge in Belfast decided that the rules should not have been included in sexual orientation regulations that came into force in January.
Church leaders have argued that such laws could seriously restrict religious freedom, because Christians who merely express the belief that homosexuality is immoral may face legal action.
But the Church groups failed to persuade the judge to throw out the rest of the regulations, which ban businesses from denying goods or services to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.
The Churches had argued that the regulations as a whole should be rejected as they were flawed and had been rushed in without sufficient consultation.
The judgement will nevertheless have widespread implications, as the Government has already initiated consultations about whether to introduce the harassment laws into the rest of Britain as part of a proposed Single Equality Bill.
In a 42-page ruling, Mr Justice Weatherup said he had quashed the harassment provisions partly because of the way they were introduced but also because of their "extended reach".
He said that, as they were framed, they could involve infringements of both freedom of speech and the right to manifest a religious belief.
The Church of England warned in its official response to the Government last week that such laws were not necessary for the rest of the country.
But, it added, if such legislation was introduced, it would be "crucial" to ensure that a religion's followers, and not just clergy, could continue be able to express strong views on homosexuality.
"To deny Christians (and followers of other faiths which take a similar view) such a right would amount to an unjustified interference with the right to manifest religious belief," the Church said.
The Roman Catholic Church said in its official response that if legislation against harassment was to be extended, "great care must be taken to protect the rights of free expression and the free practice of religion."
Yesterday's judgement in Belfast followed a five-day hearing last June after the Christian Institute, a religious pressure group, and a number of churches had applied for a judicial review of the regulations, which they claimed were a "gay rights charter."
Colin Hart, the director of the Christian Institute, said yesterday that he was delighted that the harassment portion of the legislation had been struck down.
"It means that freedom of speech is preserved," he said.
But gay rights campaigners welcomed the judge's refusal to throw out the rest of the sexual orientation regulations.
The Lesbian Advocacy Services Initiative said: "The harassment provision would have been fantastic if it had held because it is desperately needed.
"However, the regulations were extraordinarily broad in their scope but have stayed, so it is a real triumph."
The National Secular Society added: "It was not just the extremists but practically all the mainstream churches who were determined to derail these regulations. The public, Parliament and now the courts thought that dignity and equality for gay people should prevail."
The regulations came into force in Northern Ireland three months before the rest of the country after the then secretary of state, Peter Hain, controversially rushed them into law using his direct rule powers.
They were introduced in England, Scotland and Wales in April by the then communities secretary, Ruth Kelly, who excluded the harassment provisions.
But they were heavily criticised by the Catholic Church, who said that it would have to close its adoption agencies if they could not bar gay couples.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce