Today a landmark case has been ruled on.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said: “Today’s judgement is an excellent result for equal treatment, religious freedom and common sense.”

I feel that we should strike now at the heart of the problem as it current but underlines the problems spiritualism has faced at the hands of the government, religious bodies and a more lack lustre effort lately, sceptics.

I feel that cases should be brought against all when problems arise and spiritualism is attacked, belittled and sidelined and this would of course involve those who have bias during the making of media programmes.

Far too long have sceptics been allowed unfair advantage in this matter and while they are now less and less effective, they still have the advantage of media bias. In attacking the religious beliefs of spiritualists and their fervent belief, nay knowledge, of the afterlife no one seems to make the link between the spiritualist religion and other religions, why?

Why is it apparently totally acceptable and encouraged to vilify, laugh and degrade these beliefs but those attacks are not seen as a global attack on all religions? After all, all of us believe in a life after death don’t we?

Why does the preaching of (for example) Catholicism preaching it’s total belief in “Heaven” and the afterlife differ from the views of “Summerland” and the afterlife?

All religions agree on the basics that there is life after death, why is it that spiritualism above all is single out? Especially when it has the great advantage of a huge bank of evidential proof? Proof that has been available in England for approximately 135 years.

Why has this discrimination been allowed where all can express their religious views except spiritualism where it is blatantly attacked? Is it because it can be proven to have evidence which, whether you are religious or not, underlines the fact that it supports all religions by stating the fact that there is a basis for their beliefs? Is it a fact that it is “Ok to believe” as long as you don’t know for sure?

Why have we allowed this to continue? I feel that with the rapid change in vibration we should take this advantage of this ruling which has of course been in evidence for many years and use the thing!

It is very interesting that “Lawyers for the Government, which contested the claim, argued her rights were only protected in private.” Doesn’t that tell you something? Why has the government stepped in? What has that to do with an employment case? With a religious case?

Sceptics are on the back foot and should be kept there.

At the ECHR, Miss Eweida argued BA’s action contravened articles nine and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibit religious discrimination and allow “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
Lawyers for the Government, which contested the claim, argued her rights were only protected in private.

But judges today ruled there had been a violation of article nine (freedom of religion), by five votes to two.

“The court therefore concludes that, in these circumstances where there is no evidence of any real encroachment on the interests of others, the domestic authorities failed sufficiently to protect the first applicant’s right to manifest her religion.”
In view of this conclusion, it decided not to examine Ms Eweida’s complaint under article 14.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said: “Today’s judgement is an excellent result for equal treatment, religious freedom and common sense.

Home : Law : Normative instruments : European Convention on …
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 9 and 14
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Article 9
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitation as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Go to the full article: The independent.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 9 and 14

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitation as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

 

Go to the full article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/christian-woman-wins-landmark-religious-discrimination-case-as-echr-rules-british-airways-were-wrong-to-force-her-out-of-her-job-for-wearing-a-cross-8451747.html

 

Also see: http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

 

ARTICLE 9

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
  2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 14

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.