Felix Ngole puts another face to the increasing alienation of Christians
from the public square.
In 2016 he was expelled from the University of Sheffield for expressing
support for the biblical view of sexuality during a Facebook
discussion.
Yet in an important ruling today, justice prevailed as the High Court
granted permission for Felix to judicially review the University’s decision to
expel him.
Felix had been removed from his course. His case was dismissed at every
stage of the University internal appeals procedure, and his written arguments
were dismissed by a Deputy High Court Judge in March
2017.
Without the support of the Christian Legal Centre, Felix would have been
left out in the cold, unable to make his case.
It
is not just about personal justice for Felix. This case has wide-reaching
ramifications for the freedoms of Christians in all areas of public
life.
This is not a one-off
Felix should never have been placed in such a position, though his case
is not a one-off.
As I write, a member of our legal team is at an internal disciplinary
meeting at another university, supporting a would-be nurse whose biblical views
on the sanctity of life are under scrutiny. Her fitness to practise is under
question because of those deeply-held views.
We know that people all over the world look to the UK as a free nation.
Yet Felix Ngole’s case shows an attempt by the authorities to shut down the
expression of Christian belief in the very platforms where ideas should be
explored freely and without fear of giving offence.
This is our experience in many cases at the Christian Legal
Centre.
Facebook is a part of most of our lives. We use it to engage with and
debate ideas. It was this medium which Felix used to express support for Kim
Davis, the US marriage clerk who expressed a conscientious objection to issuing
marriage certificates to same-sex couples.
Felix’s beliefs about marriage and sexual ethics reflect mainstream,
biblical understanding, shared by millions around the world. In this case, he
was expelled from his course simply for expressing solidarity with a foreign
political prisoner. This hardly indicates that his views would affect his
treatment, as a social worker, of homosexual
individuals.
Distinction without difference
Yet Counsel for the University of Sheffield, Sarah Hannett of Matrix
Chambers, told the Court that the University’s policy "is
not just that the services must be provided without discrimination, but without
perception of discrimination, and that required the removal of Mr Ngole from the
course."
She said that using Facebook to express beliefs on marriage and sexuality
was not "intimately
connected" with the Christian faith.
She continued by arguing that the University did not punish Mr Ngole for
his views on same-sex unions, but rather for "the
place and the manner" of expressing it on
Facebook.
What does this mean? It is a distinction without a
difference.
She recognised that Felix had never discriminated against anyone but the
possible perception of discrimination by future service users made him unfit to
be a social worker.
Bound
up in freedom of belief is freedom to share those beliefs with others, and, as
Felix Ngole’s Counsel Paul Diamond submitted, the University’s position "is
a proxy for saying we don’t like those views". A
similar position can be seen in the cases of Barry Trayhorn, prison worker, and
Michael Overd, street preacher, both of whom were punished after quoting from
the Bible.
The
implication of what Sarah Hannett said is that any Christian expression on
sexual ethics, in whatever context – church, social media, social functions
could render you unfit to work as a professional because of a perception that
you would discriminate. She implies that the Christian viewpoint is unfairly
discriminatory of homosexuals. The consequences of this are
far-reaching.
Bar to office for Christians
Further education is a time when all students should be helped to explore
their beliefs, through interaction and debate. If they are 'censored' from even
sharing their ideas or beliefs as part of a discussion on Facebook, then how can
that happen? The University's treatment of Felix violates its responsibilities
under human rights legislation, and fails to protect his freedom of speech and
freedom of religion.
If the personal statements of students on their own social media pages
are now to be used to judge whether they are 'fit and proper people' to serve in
professions such as law, medicine, teaching and social work, then very serious
questions need to be asked about freedom in the UK.
This position effectively creates a bar to office for Christians,
amounting to a secret policing of Christian belief.
This increases the pressure on University students, and Christians more
broadly, to keep quiet and present themselves in a way that seems reasonable and
acceptable. But this cannot be our approach. It cannot be compassionate or
effective to rob society of the opportunity to hear the life-changing and
life-giving message of the gospel.
As Standing Counsel to the Christian Legal Centre, Paul Diamond, told the
Court: "The
duty of the courts is to control those bodies [universities], to ensure that the
freedom continues, and that due process of law is followed. The free speech in
this country is getting narrower and narrower, and I submit that now is the
moment for the judiciary to start standing up for
it."
Although today’s decision is a step in the right direction the kind of
censorship seen here raises huge issues for freedom for Christians to live and
speak out their faith. At many stages of this case Felix could have given up and
retreated quietly with no one ever knowing what had happened to
him.
Here at the Christian Legal Centre, day in day out, we fight to protect
the fundamental freedoms that are under siege. Christian
Concern.
.jpeg)