A teacher who claims she was sacked over her Christian beliefs regarding teaching LGBT-related issues to young children is going to the Royal Courts of Justice in a case that could be “profoundly important for free speech and Christian freedom” in the UK.
Kristie Higgs, 47, has also highlighted the emotional torment caused by the saga dragging on for five years and said she “wouldn’t want any parent to go through” what she has had to undergo as a result of speaking her mind based on her conscience on a social media platform.
In 2019, Mrs Higgs was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct by Farmor’s School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, after sharing Facebook posts criticising plans to teach about LGBT-related relationships in primary schools, reports the Daily Telegraph.
Mrs Higgs specifically raised concerns about relationship education at her son’s Church of England primary school. Pupils there were to learn about the No Outsiders In Our School programme, which is a series of books that proclaims to deliver the objectives outlined in the Equality Act 2010 and to prepare “children for life in modern Britain”.
In 2018, Mrs Higgs, who at the time posted on Facebook under her maiden name, shared two posts in October of that year to about 100 friends.
One of the posts referred to “brainwashing our children”, and, referencing the No Outsiders In Our School classes, suggested: “Children will be taught that all relationships are equally valid and ‘normal’, so that same-sex marriage is exactly the same as traditional marriage, and gender is a matter of choice, not biology, so that it’s up to them what sex they are.”
She added: “We say again this is a vicious form of totalitarianism aimed at suppressing Christianity and removing it from the public arena.”
Subsequently, an anonymous complaint was made to the school and Mrs Higgs was suspended and, after a disciplinary hearing, dismissed for gross misconduct.
Following her dismissal, Mrs Higgs took the school to an employment tribunal, arguing she had been unlawfully discriminated against because of her Christian beliefs.
In its ruling in 2020, the tribunal concluded that while the religion of Mrs Higgs is a “protected characteristic”, as defined by the Equality Act, the school had lawfully dismissed her.
Mrs Higgs lawyers have since successfully won the right to have her case heard by Court of Appeal judges, the Telegraph reports.
Ahead of the hearing, which is due to begin at the Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday 2 October, Mrs Higgs said: “I wouldn’t want any parent to go through what I have over the past five years. Nobody should be sacked for raising the concerns that I did in the way that I did.
“My posts were a warning and so much of what has happened in the [public] debate over the past five years has vindicated me.
“I pray now that the Court of Appeal will make the right judgment and will make a ruling that protects Christian employees and parents’ freedom to express their beliefs without fear of being silenced.”
The school has denied dismissing the mother-of-two because of her religious beliefs and said she was sacked because of the language used in the posts.
“This case is profoundly important for free speech and Christian freedom,” says Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre. “Its outcome will set an important legal precedent for many years to come.
“This case has exposed at every stage systemic prejudice against the Christian faith and its teachings. First at her school and then in the courts. Now is the time to put things right.
“The outcome of this case will be huge and has been a long five-year journey.
“We pray now for justice for Kristie and that there will be a ruling that not only protects Christian freedoms, but also protects freedom for everyone in the UK.”
The Royal Courts of Justice recently ruled on another important case regarding the issue of continuing life-saving treatment for children when doctors and parents disagree over continuing treatment.
The case followed the remarkable survival of a 4-year-old boy who was expected to die shortly after his life support was removed.
His survival not only “confounded” medical expectations, said a judge, but raised “challenging questions” about how the courts intervene in disagreements between doctors and parents over the treatment of ill children.