The Parliamentary and Public Affairs Committee, (PPAC) continues to meet once a month, to look at current and important issues in the public sphere which affect Catholic life in this country.
A number of important issues are presently before both Houses of Parliament and are of concern and interest to members of the Catholic Union and indeed the wider Christian community and others in this country. Should same sex marriage and the Liverpool Care Pathway, to take two such examples, be allowed to develop unabated, the repercussions for family life and society more generally, will be grave and irreversible.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (SSM)
This Bill has completed the Committee Stage and it is understood from a group of well-placed MPs, that the Government will seek Royal Assent for the Bill by this summer. It seems that the best opportunity now for thwarting this will lie in the Lords. The Catholic Union has issued a briefing note on the Bill outlining four key areas of concern, which are: the meaning of “compel”, education, duties of registrars and freedom of expression. Adultery and consummation are being defined as applying to heterosexuals only and degrees of consanguinity and affinity are being removed for homosexuals. Such proposals would for example enable a father to “marry” his son in order to avoid inheritance tax. It follows then that what is being held as equal marriage is not in fact equal. Adultery between heterosexuals will continue to be illegal; this does not apply to homosexuals. It is also noted that grassroots political opposition could prove effective, particularly in Conservative marginal seats. The Campaign for Marriage (C4M) campaign now stands at well over 600,000 signatures. In Scotland a same-sex marriage bill has yet to be promulgated, as Holyrood is waiting on Westminster. Government assurances that those dissenting from SSM would not be discriminated against, are probably worthless in law and there is an ongoing discussion as to what Catholic schools can and should teach on the subject.
The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP)
This issue has been discussed by both the PPAC and the Joint Medical Ethics Committee. Relatives are now more aware of the Pathway and its effects and are registering their complaints. Statistics from 2012 suggest that the number of patients on the LCP in some hospitals has gone down from 50% – 30%. This is a significant reduction. There is a real need to restore the trust of both patients and the public in doctors and nurses. The jewel in the crown in both practice and application of care of the dying is the hospice movement. On a recent BBC Radio Programme, was heard the astute comment, in relation to the application of the LCP –”I fear thirst”.
The short time allowed for the Neuberger Independent Review will not do justice to the complexities involved. Baroness Neuberger (herself in favour of euthanasia) has been touring the country holding “Listening Sessions”, but without following up on the cases cited. The main question surrounding the LCP is whether it is a treatment and whether the process is flawed, or, as is more likely, it is a misapplication. At a recent meeting and debate on the LCP under the auspices of the Anscombe Centre for Bioethics of the Bishops’ Conference, there was a split between those in favour and those against. At a regional meeting of the Christian Medical Fellowship, the senior doctors present were not in favour of the LCP, but almost all the junior doctors were in favour, because the LCP gave a structure to use in a difficult situation, which they had not the experience to cope with easily.
Freedom of Conscience and Religious Expression
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), has now published guidelines on conscience and religious expression. This is covered by the document “EHRC guidance on religion in the workplace” which seems to deal satisfactorily with the various problems that had been taken to the ECtHR.
Two recent decisions of the ECtHR are outlined below. The legal position for religious rights is slightly better than it was previously. In particular the ECtHR has changed its view and no longer considers that an employee, whose religious rights were infringed, should resign and get another job. Eweida and Chaplin involved the right to wear a Christian Cross at work and Ladele and McFarlane involved objections to the endorsement of same sex relationships. Eweida won her case; the others lost theirs. The claims alleged breaches of Articles 9 (Freedom of Religion) and Article 14 (Freedom from Discrimination) of the European Convention of Human Rights. In the Eweida and Chaplin cases the ECtHR rejected the idea that because the wearing of a Cross was not compulsory in Christianity, its wearing was not a “manifestation” of religion for the purposes of Article 9.1. In the case of Eweida the ECtHR held that the ban on her wearing a cross was not justified in a democratic society (per Art 9.2). In the case of Chaplin, a nurse, the court decided that, because she wore the cross on a chain, a ban could be justified on health and safety grounds. Thus restriction of religious freedom was not, in principle, the issue in Chaplin. With Ladele and McFarlane there was a conflict between rights (religion versus discrimination) and the court held the balance was a matter for member states to decide. Thus any member state could lawfully provide for a conscientious objection on the issue, if it so wished. However, the dissenting opinions of Judges Vucinic and de Gaetano may provide ground for further appeals. They held that Lillian Ladele’s case is “not so much one of freedom of religious belief as one of freedom of conscience – that is, that no one should be forced to act against one’s conscience or be penalised for refusing to act against one’s conscience”. They added: “although freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are dealt with under the same Article of the Convention, there is a fundamental difference between the two which, in our view, has not been adequately made … in the judgment”.
Gender-based Abortion
Fiona Bruce MP had tabled an early day motion and has also introduced a ten minute rule bill expressing shock at the disproportionate number of girls aborted by some ethnic communities and calling on the Dept of Health to record abortions by gender and to prosecute where appropriate since abortion on the grounds of gender is illegal.
Public Order Act
Section 5 of the Public Order Act had been amended in the Lords to remove “insult” as a crime. This had been accepted by the Home Secretary. This amendment was supported by the Christian Institute and others.