Christian Legal Centre loses yet another ‘persecution’ case

Christian Legal Centre loses yet another ‘persecution’ case June 20, 2019

FOR months Christian Concern, which incorporates the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), has been calling on faith-heads to pray that a sacked homophobic magistrate wins his appeal against unfair dismissal.

Image via YouTube/Christian Concern

Well, today we learned that Richard Page, pictured above with the CLC’s  Chief Executive Officer Andrea Miniciello Williams, has lost his appeal.

The group has repeatedly claimed that Page “only wanted to do what was best for the child” in an adoption case and insisted he was:

Unfairly dismissed and ruled out of public life.

Page was stripped of his position as a Family Court magistrate in 2015,  after claiming during an adoption case that it would be better for a child to be placed “with a mother and father” than with the prospective parents, who were a gay couple.

Page was struck off by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, but sought to challenge the decision on the basis that he was a victim of “religious discrimination” and was being “persecuted” for his Christian faith.

But yesterday (Wednesday) an Employment Appeal Tribunal judge dismissed his legal challenge.

Mr Justice Choudhury affirmed that Page was not sacked for being a Christian, but because he had “chosen to advertise the bias that he would apply in the exercise of his judicial functions,” and had “disregarded” instructions by speaking to the media about the case.

Image via YouTube

National Secular Society Chief Executive Stephen Evans, above,  said:

Rather than reaching decisions based on the evidence before him, Richard Page has shown a willingness bring his personal views to bear. In a secular legal system, judges must not allow their personal religious convictions to intrude.

By allowing his personal religious views to influence his judicial decision-making, Mr Page undermined the principle of impartiality, and therefore, the judiciary itself. The court is therefore right to reject his appeal.

Page also lost a separate challenge against the NHS Trust from which he was dismissed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected Page’s case against the Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, saying that it was not Page’s belief but the fact that he expressed his belief that led to his removal.

The judge added that LGBT people suffer disproportionately from mental illness and might be dissuaded from using the trust’s services because of the high profile coverage of Page’s Christian beliefs.

Page, who had been a magistrate on the Central Kent Bench covering Maidstone and Sevenoaks for 15 years, said:

I am deeply disappointed that the court has ruled that saying that a child will do better with a mother and a father is proper grounds for dismissal as a magistrate and as a director of an NHS trust.

I’m also disappointed that Mr Justice Choudhury believes this viewpoint can be separated from my Christian faith. This shows that we are now living in a deeply intolerant society which cannot stand any dissent from politically correct views – even from judges.

I hope that we can appeal this decision and restore freedom of speech across the country.

Williams added:

This case reveals frightening developments in our society. The judgment demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what it means to be Christian and what it means to live out your faith in the public sphere.

But even more disturbing is the suggestion that simply holding the belief is sufficient to constitute a breach of his judicial oath.

If upheld, this rules out conscientious, informed Christians from holding judicial positions.

Richard Page only wanted to do what was best for the child – the ‘gold standard’ for cases involving the welfare of a child.

For expressing his well-founded belief that a child will do better with a mother and a father he has been unfairly dismissed and ruled out of public life.

This ruling is a serious infringement of the freedom of Christians to express their views, showing a deep intolerance for Christians who are prepared to say what they believe in public life.

History will look back on this judgment with dismay at the judiciary’s ignorance of and intolerance towards Christian beliefs.

Poo-pooing her words, Evans said:

Mr Page wasn’t victimised because of his Christian beliefs, but because he risked undermining public confidence in the NHS by expressing personal views in media interviews without informing the Trust, which he had been expressly told to do.

This ruling reaffirms the position that being religious does not give you the right to ignore employers’ rules or be accorded special treatment.

"Well, you know what they say about ASSuming things."

‘Love it or leave it’ sign ..."
"Yeah, I picked up on that, too. Well, I did live outside of the US ..."

‘Love it or leave it’ sign ..."
"I'd probably say, "okay," and move on. I really don't care what you believe, and ..."

C of E teaching used against ..."
"CoE is still the official state religion, of which the Queen is the head. Religion ..."

C of E teaching used against ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Milo C

    It’s good that he has been removed, although he helped unseat himself by disobeying the rule about commenting publicly. Without that boost this might’ve dragged on.

    I’m pleased to see that, instead of trying to defend the benefits of a mother/father household in any logical way, he went straight for the faith answer. “It’s better because I feel like an ancient jewish god-man said he came to divide families…. wait, not that verse.”

  • Jim Jones

    Experience suggests that his opinion is wrong – gays make better parents.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    I think le sbia ns came out best, but within the margin of error.

  • Michael Neville

    Christian fanatics like Page pretend that their religion excuses their homo‍phobia. He wasn’t dismissed because he was a Christian, he was dismissed because he was a bigot.

  • Daz

    In related news, Christian numbskulls petition to have the Good Omens TV series cancelled (because, of course they do)… but petition the wrong broadcaster
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/20/petition-netflix-cancel-amazon-prime-good-omens-christian-neil-gaiman-terry-pratchett

  • Chris Hogue

    The only thing that should matter regarding a couple wanting children is their desire to have children for normal and non-nefarious reasons.

  • johnsoncatman

    I hope that we can appeal this decision and restore freedom of speech across the country.

    Your freedom of speech (aka diarrhea of the mouth) is what got you in trouble to begin with. You are free to say what you want, but you don’t have freedom from the consequences of those words.

    But even more disturbing is the suggestion that simply holding the belief is sufficient to constitute a breach of his judicial oath.

    What a willfully ignorant thing to say. If you cannot do your job without injecting your bigoted beliefs into it, you don’t deserve to keep the job.

    For expressing his well-founded belief that a child will do better with a mother and a father he has been unfairly dismissed and ruled out of public life.

    A belief that has been proven to be wrong. A “well-founded” or “strongly-held” belief does not refute actual evidence to the contrary. As a judge, you should be able to separate fact from fiction, reality from fantasy.

    History will look back on this judgment with dismay at the judiciary’s ignorance of and intolerance towards Christian beliefs.

    Here is a belief for you: I think history will find that your bigoted christian beliefs are what is intolerant and your efforts to prevent equality and justice for all are what brought about the downfall of your religion.

  • Barry Duke
  • ManxStuart

    In what way was his freedom of speech restricted? As the report shows, this bigot got his cretinous comments printed accurately in a newspaper, didn’t he? All that happened is he’s been binned by two UK institutions which should never have taken on the swivel-eyed freak in the first place.
    Sounds like an all round win for humanity to me.

  • frostysnowman

    “This ruling is a serious infringement of the freedom of Christians to express their views, showing a deep intolerance for Christians who are prepared to say what they believe in public life.” He’s free to say gays are icky in in his public life all he wants. He’s not free to use that feeling to deny people equality as prospective parents or anything else in the secular court.