A no-win situation for public officials with faith convictions

• Autores: Andrew Hambler
• Localización: Ecclesiastical law journal, ISSN 0956-618X, Vol. 12, Nº. 1, 2010, págs. 3-16
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • This article considers two recent high-profile employment cases to investigate the peculiar dilemma faced by certain public officials who are called upon to implement public policy in situations where their consciences are made uneasy due to their faith-based convictions. Such officials face, among other options, the dilemma of choosing between an appeal to rational objections, based on �public reasons� that are non-religious in character, or citing their own faith-based conscientious objections. In McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs, by initially basing his objections on a form of public reason, McClintock arguably muddied the waters for his subsequent unsuccessful claim of religious discrimination. In Ladele v Islington Borough Council, however, the appeal to conscience alone also failed as religious convictions were �trumped� by the superior claims of particular policy objectives. This article thus concludes that the �religious� public official may, ultimately, have nowhere to turn except either to silence conscience and acquiesce or to exercise that �minimum� employment right under ECHR case law � the right to resign.