Posts Tagged ‘Rights’

Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Catholic Care’s unexpected triumph paves the way for other groups forced to close or dissociate from the church to reopen as Catholic organisations.

Religious campaigners said that the judge’s ruling would galvanise growing resistance to Labour’s gay rights agenda, while secular activists warned of a “tidal wave” of similar legal challenges from Catholic groups.

Catholic Care, which serves the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough, and Hallam in South Yorkshire, launched the legal action saying it would have to give up its work finding homes for children if it had to comply with the 2007 Equality Act

The law banned adoption agencies from discriminating against homosexual prospective parents.

The adoption agency claimed that a clause of the legislation – Regulation 18 – should permit charities to continue to refuse gay couples if the stated aim of the charity was to provide services to people of a particular sexual orientation. The loophole was inserted to ensure that gay charities could not be sued for discrimination by heterosexual couples.

Catholic Care’s application to write an explicit reference to serving heterosexuals into its constitution was rejected by the Charities Commission, but today Mr Justice Briggs ordered the commission to review its decision. He accepted that the adoption agency could still provided a public benefit even if it did not consider homosexual parents.

The Rt Rev Arthur Roche, Bishop of Leeds, said that the judgement would “help in our determination to continue to provide this invaluable service to benefit children, families and communities”.

He added: “We look forward to producing evidence to the Charity Commission to support the position that we have consistently taken through this process: that without being able to use this exemption, children without families would be seriously disadvantaged.”

Catholic Care was the last of Britain’s eleven Catholic adoption agencies to resist the changes. Some charities like the Catholic Children’s Society, Westminster, and the Catholic Children’s Rescue Society in Salford decided to close their adoption services, while others agreed to accept the regulations and cut ties with the church.

Christian campaigners said that the judgement opened the door for other adoption agencies to reopen under a Catholic banner.

Andrea Williams from the Christian Legal Centre said: “This is a great result and a step in the right direction. It’s upsetting that the other adoption agencies have been forced to close, but this ruling will help them reopen if they so wish.

“The ruling supports Christian groups which want to operate freely and according to traditional values with regard to the nature of family.”

Philippa Gitlin, director of the Caritas Social Action Network, an umbrella group of Catholic charities, said that the trustees of charities that had adapted to comply with the legislation would “carefully consider” the ruling.

She said: “It is entirely a matter for specific consideration by the trustees of each charity what action, if any, they decide is feasible and appropriate in the light of today’s judgement. ”

Secular campaigners condemned the judge’s decision as “alarming” and “a major setback” for gay rights.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “It is unfortunate that the court has enabled Catholic Care to exploit what was obviously an error in the drafting of the equality legislation. The loophole this created was never intended to be used this way.

“If the Charity Commission reverses its previous decision – as the court is asking it to – we can look forward to a tidal wave of similar challenges from bigoted Catholic organisations who are determined not to accord any rights to gay people at all.”

Interesting to see this development. It would seem the Church is likely to start to exert its influence further in light of unhappiness about the way Labour have conducted themselves to matters that are of great importance to the Church and wider community.

Jim Ferguson

Tweet this!

I am really sick and tired of reading about the rights of despicable monsters like Jon Venables who are allowed to hide behind a wall of secrecy created by this Labour Government to protect such vile people. Labour have totally failed to protect members of the public and their shielding of this monster only prove how out of touch with public opinion they are. Their liberal soft touch justice that sees children murdered and then the killers treated to holidays and the best of treatment is sickening.

Its quite clear that they treated the two Bulger killers with kid gloves all these years no doubt with the sympathy of the LibDems who help make a mockery of British justice and who pander to evil people and gloat about their ” Rights ” but its time that the ” Rights ” of ordinary people were put first.

With rights comes responsibilities !

Jim Ferguson

Child porn claims over Bulger killer

venables recalled over suspicions, report alleges

Published: 08/03/2010

James Bulger killer Jon Venables was recalled to prison on suspicion of child pornography offences, using drugs and fears he had revealed his new identity, it was alleged yesterday.

The claims about the 27-year-old convicted murderer, made in a Sunday newspaper, came after Justice Secretary Jack Straw refused to disclose the reasons for last week’s recall, saying only they related to “extremely serious allegations”.

Senior politicians yesterday lined up to support the government’s stance. The decision was backed by David Blunkett, who as then home secretary informed MPs of the Parole Board’s decision that Venables should be released in 2001.

Writing in a Sunday newspaper, he said: “The separation between judges and politicians is critical. The idea that we should abandon it in this case is understandable coming from James’ immediate family. Even with a general election pending, the Government cannot and must not bend on this – not least because if Venables has committed a further crime, then that victim and their family deserve their day in court.”

Leader of the Commons Harriet Harman declined to comment on the reason why Venables was returned to custody. She said: “If there is a question of an offence having been committed then it needs to be properly investigated and anybody who has committed an offence needs to be brought to trial.

“We don’t want anything to happen whereby they can’t be brought to a trial because it is said they can’t get a fair trial because all the media reporting has been prejudiced.”

James’s mother Denise Fergus, 42, said yesterday Venables should lose his anonymity if he was charged with a new offence.

Her spokesman, Chris Johnson, said: “If after that, depending on the outcome of the court case, the powers that be decide that he should have some new identity yet again, then we’ll deal with that when we come to it.

“But she can’t understand why he doesn’t appear in a dock under his own name, if that’s going to be where he ends up.

“She’s appalled. She doesn’t think that he should be at liberty anyway. He should really have served a sentence of something in the order of 15 years and should be coming up for parole now. In her mind, if there has been an offence committed, it means that that could have been avoided.”

Mrs Fergus has demanded to know why Venables was put back in jail, and is meeting Mr Straw to discuss the matter.

The killer and his accomplice Robert Thompson were aged 10 when they battered two-year-old James to death in Liverpool 17 years ago.

They were both released on lifelong licence in 2001 with new identities, requiring them to obey strict conditions such as not contacting each other or returning to the city where James was killed.

Venables reportedly faces a looming return to court over the “extremely serious” allegations, causing a potential security nightmare for the authorities trying to preserve his lifelong anonymity order.

Justifying his decision not to disclose details of Venables’ recall, Mr Straw said: “I said on Wednesday that I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables’ return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.

“That view was shared by the police and the director of public prosecutions. We all feared that a premature disclosure of information would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process, including the investigation and potential prosecution of individual(s).”

Tweet this!