I don't know how to explain this. Perhaps it is proof that the universe is really a simulation and this is one of the little glitches in the matrix that people spot from time to time, a bit like the Mandela Effect. All I can do is tell you what happened to me.
Case No: HK47EE03027
Neutral Citation
Number: [2050] EWHC 1893 (KB)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
EMPLOYMENT AND EQUALITIES COURT
(HUMAN)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Earth
Date: 30 June 2050
Before :
THE
HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE STIMPSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
Between
:
DR SHIREEN TAYLOR
|
Claimant
|
|
- and -
|
||
ST MARK'S HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST
|
Defendant
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
Eleanor
Hutchinson for the Claimant
Kate Banks for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 8, 9 and 10 June 2050
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
Judgment
Stimpson J:
1. I am presented with a claim brought by Dr Shireen Taylor, who alleges that she has been the subject of impermissible
religious discrimination in the manner of her dismissal from her employment as
a doctor, specifically a geriatric care consultant at St Mark's Hospital,
London.
2. Dr Taylor’s erstwhile employer, which I
shall refer to as the Trust, contends that she was dismissed for misconduct, in
particular in refusing without reasonable excuse to take part in an EML-pride
awareness event.
3. Dr Taylor's case is that it would be
contrary to her strongly held religious beliefs to participate in the event in
question, which she quaintly described as a “celebration of adultery”. Whether she was entitled to rely on these beliefs is the dispute that I have to decide.
4. Before I turn to the evidence I should
deal with two preliminary matters.
5. First, I am aware that there has been a
good deal of press interest in this case. In some quarters the case has been
described as illustrating an apparent clash between religious belief and modern
sexual ethics. This is nonsense. This case is nothing more than the application
of the well-established rules of law which balance the legitimate roles of
religion and sexual expression in a democratic society.
6. Second, as I explained to the parties
at the outset of the hearing, I am a member of the EML community. This disclosure,
which I made as a matter of courtesy, prompted an ill-conceived application
made by counsel for Dr Taylor to the effect that I should recuse myself from
hearing the case. I dismissed this application. I regret to say that Dr
Taylor's counsel thought it appropriate to appeal that decision, but unsurprisingly
that appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. I shall of course decide this
case without fear or favour and in accordance with my judicial oath.
7. With those preliminary observations out
of the way, I turn to the substance of the dispute.
8. Dr Taylor is a woman with, until the
events with which we are concerned, an unblemished disciplinary record. She
studied medicine in London and upon qualifying specialised in geriatric
medicine. She became appointed as a consultant at St Mark’s Hospital approximately
two years before the events with which we are concerned.
9. On her appointment, Dr Taylor came into
contact with Mr Lewis Smith. Mr Smith is the Trust’s Director of Diversity
Outreach. Mr Smith’s evidence, which I accept, is that the Trust operates in a
diverse area of south London and that it is important that everyone, no matter
what their sexuality, race, gender or religion is, feels comfortable in being
treated in the hospital. Moreover, the staff of the hospital also come from a
wide variety of backgrounds and his role in Diversity Outreach includes
facilitating a number of initiatives to ensure that all the staff, again regardless
of their sexuality, race, gender or religion, also feel valued and appreciated.
I find that Mr Smith plays a crucial role in ensuring that the Trust can offer
the very best clinical care to its patients and the very best support to its employees.
10. Mr Smith is also a member of the EML
community. The extra-marital love community, perhaps more commonly known as the randy community, is a community which,
although known in antiquity, has been essentially oppressed and disregarded
until recent years. Fortunately, modern society is far more tolerant of those
who are sexually attracted to non-spouses and allows such people (including
myself) to play a full role in society and contribute to the common good.
Indeed, much progress has been made in the last few years in valuing the EML
community and validating the life choices of its members: I refer, for example,
to the recent Randy Pride March through London. In her application for my
recusal, counsel for Dr Taylor referred to a photograph taken at that event
showing me carrying a banner inscribed with the slogan “love is love” as
somehow indicating an apparent bias on my part, although I fail to see the
relevance of that anodyne (and, indeed, tautologous) slogan to the matter at hand.
11.
Mr Smith’s evidence, which was given
frankly and without evasion, was that, for so long as he can remember, he has been sexually attracted to
large-breasted blonde women in their early-to-mid twenties. He tells me (and I
accept) that he was aware of this when he married Mrs Smith around 20 years
ago, but that he nonetheless married in the hope and expectation that the love
he felt for his wife at that time would allow him to “overcome” his sexual orientation.
12.
Mrs Smith did not give evidence, but
she was present in the courtroom during the trial and I had the opportunity to observe her over several days. I mean no disrespect to her when I say that she is a
relatively flat-breasted, brown-haired woman in, I would judge, her late
forties. Mr Smith also gave evidence that he preferred women with long hair,
and I note that Mrs Smith has short hair.
13.
Unsurprisingly, Mr Smith came to
understand that his sexual orientation was fixed: he was, to coin a phrase,
born that way. He duly ‘came out’ to his wife as randy about 5 years ago. I can well understand that that was a difficult time for
both of them. However, as he put it to me, his wife is “not randyphobic” and
she eventually saw that it was important to validate and uphold who he really
is, and I commend her for that.
14.
I regret to say that Mr Smith was
cross-examined at some length on the subject of his recourse to sex workers in
the period shortly before and after he ‘came out’. It is not at all unusual for
members of the EML community to avail themselves of the services of sex workers
as they struggle to come to terms with their orientation and, indeed, over the longer
term. I see nothing worthy of comment in this. It may be that Mr
Smith was compelled to arrange sessions with such workers during working hours
and/or in the Trust’s premises, but given the evident difficulties in using the
marital home for such purposes I do not consider this to be at all surprising.
15.
Mr Smith’s position as Director of
Diversity Outreach meant that he was well-placed to support and encourage
members of the EML community both locally and in particular within the Trust’s
staff. On 22 January 2049, he therefore circulated an email to all staff
proposing that the annual Valentine’s Day Disco, which was scheduled for Friday
12 February, would have an randy-pride theme. His email, which was phrased in a
light-hearted tone suitable for a social event of this kind, stated: “Randy
old goat? Naughty young buck? // Forget
your spouse and come for a f ..... un time!”. The email went on to explain
that in order to validate members of the EML community, spouses or partners
(other than employees of the Trust) would not be permitted to attend the Disco
and that what Mr Smith delicately described as “full participation” would be
required by all attendees.
16.
On the following Monday, 25 January, Mr
Smith chaired the Diversity Outreach Committee meeting. This is a weekly
meeting attended by all consultants and senior management within the
Trust. Mr Smith explained that it takes place at 9am every Monday so that
everyone in a position of responsibility in the Trust starts the week with a “diversity mindset”.
17.
The meeting concluded at about
lunchtime and Mr Smith and Dr Taylor found themselves exchanging pleasantries
over the sandwiches that the Trust provides for these meetings. There was
little dispute as to what was said and I find that the following conversation
ensued. Mr Smith asked Dr Taylor if she was intending to attend the Valentine’s
Day Disco. Dr Taylor responded that her husband would not be happy if she did so. Mr
Smith said that it was important for him and other members of the EML community
to feel supported and validated by their colleagues and that he hoped that all
of the specialisms in the hospital would be represented at the disco. Dr Taylor
replied that she was sure that someone from geriatrics would be there to, as she
put it, “boogie the night away”. Mr Smith said that in fact the turn-out from
geriatrics was going to be poor as he had already had valid excuses from the
other consultants in emails sent over the weekend, so unless Dr Taylor attended
there would be no one. Dr Taylor then said, and I find that these were her exact words, “in all seriousness, Lew, I’m a Christian and I would regard attending
this sort of thing as adultery – I think it’s wrong”.
18.
Mr Smith’s evidence, which I accept,
was that he was so shocked by these words that he was unable to reply. He
described this as the most egregious example of randyphobia to which he had
ever been subjected; he was not challenged on this assertion.
19.
Later that evening, Mr Smith made a
complaint to Ms Pearson, the head of Human and Non-Human Personnel Resources at the Trust. I need not recite the
history of the treatment of Mr Smith’s complaint in detail. Suffice it to say
that the Trust’s HNHPR procedures were laudably swift: Dr Taylor was required not
to attend the Trust’s premises nor to use its IT systems the following day,
Tuesday 26 January, and she was dismissed from her employment on Friday 30
January.
20.
In order to assist me in determining whether the Trust
was justified in dismissing Dr Taylor I have heard evidence from two expert
witnesses who practise the Christian Religion, namely Fr Ambrose Adams and the
Reverend Maxie Yalding.
21.
I should explain that the Christian
Religion, known also as Christianity, is divided into a number of different
schools (referred to as ‘denominations’), in a similar way to the familiar
division of Islam between the Sunni and the Shi’a schools of thought. Fr Adams
is a minister of the Catholic (or Roman Catholic) denomination of the Christian
Religion, while Rev Yalding is a minister of Anglican (or Church of England)
denomination.
22.
The experts explained to the Court that
there is a great deal of historical background to the divisions within the
Christian Religion. At one point, it was even proposed that I be taken to an
explanation of the mechanism by which Henry VIII obtained his first divorce and
thereafter married Anne Boleyn in order to understand some of this background!
I took this opportunity to explain to the parties that the evidence before the
Court must always be restricted to that which is reasonably necessary to
determine the points in issue or else the Court’s time and resources will be
wasted on extraneous matters.
23.
It was in the event unnecessary to
investigate many of the details of the differences between the different
schools of thought within the Christian Religion as it was common ground
between the experts that each of them was indeed a Christian. I therefore find that
the differences between the denominations are matters of style rather than
substance and may be disregarded for present purposes.
24.
Before I turn to the substance of the
evidence given by the experts it is right that I should record my impressions
of them.
25.
Fr Ambrose is no doubt a
highly-qualified religious minster and theologian. However, I regret to say
that in his evidence before me he adopted a dogmatic attitude which is
unsuitable for an expert seeking to assist the Court. At various points, he
refused to accept points put to him in cross-examination despite the fact that
they were plainly correct. I refer, for example, to his refusal to assent to
the self-evident proposition that matters of right and wrong are simply matters
of opinion. I note that his CV mentions that he has a qualification in
“Apologetics”: I regret that he did not use this to proffer an apology to the Court
for his behaviour.
26.
Rev Maxie, by contrast, was a helpful
and polite expert who, I find, was seeking to assist the Court. Rev Maxie was,
in my view, equally as well-qualified as Fr Ambrose to opine on matters
relating to the Christian Religion, but she gave her evidence in a far less
dogmatic (and consequently far more reasonable) manner than Fr Ambrose. For
example, when counsel for Dr Taylor put to her the fact that a number of dead
Christian authors had expressed views disparaging of those in the EML
community, she readily accepted that this was the case, stating that “EML-ophobia
is part of the sad history of Christianity”, but she nonetheless maintained
that the modern trend in the Christian Religion was not merely a tolerance for those
who sexual orientation lies towards extra-marital partners, going so far as to
explain that Christians are in her view required to “enfold” the EML community in a “loving
embrace”. In all areas where their evidence differed, I prefer that of Rev
Maxie to that of Fr Ambrose.
27.
I now address the upshot of the expert
evidence so far as it is relevant to this case.
28.
The Christian Religion is regarded as
having been founded by a Jewish man who lived in the first century CE called
Jesus Christ. Many of Mr Christ’s sayings and teachings, along with picturesque
accounts of incidents from his life, are recorded in the Christian holy book,
the Bible.
29.
I accept the evidence of Rev Maxie,
which was not seriously challenged by Fr Ambrose, that Mr Christ’s fundamental
message was pro-love. It would therefore be highly surprising if Mr Christ’s
teaching was dismissive of members of the EML community. And indeed it was not,
as I shall explain.
30.
One significant incident in the life of
Mr Christ that is recorded in the Bible concerns a woman who participated in
an extra-marital relationship. Although Fr Ambrose favoured a different
translation, I shall cite the modern translation of the passage, which I take
from the expert report of Rev Maxie. In its entirety, the relevant passage
states as follows.
John 8:3-11
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman who had taken part in an extra-marital relationship. They made her stand before them and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught taking part in an extra-marital sexual relationship. In the Law Moses [I interject to explain that Moses is a non-Christian authority whose teachings are regarded as persuasive but not binding upon Christians], commanded us to throw stones at such persons. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman who had taken part in an extra-marital relationship. They made her stand before them and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught taking part in an extra-marital sexual relationship. In the Law Moses [I interject to explain that Moses is a non-Christian authority whose teachings are regarded as persuasive but not binding upon Christians], commanded us to throw stones at such persons. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent
down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they
kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you
who is really, really good be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he
stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those
who heard began to go away one at a time, starting with the more age-endowed persons,
until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus
straightened up and asked her, “Person, where are they? Has no one condemned
you?”
“No one,” she
said.
“Me neither,” Jesus
said. “I don’t condemn you. Go now and be good.”
31.
Fr Ambrose argued that the parting
words of Mr Christ, namely “be good”, should be taken to indicate that
the woman’s participation in an extra-marital relationship was not itself to be regarded as good
within the Christian belief system. I consider that an impermissible inference.
The plain meaning of the passage is that Mr Christ was not condemning the woman
in question: that is what he says. Moreover, taking the passage as a whole, it
is tolerably clear that Mr Christ is inviting the woman to continue
participating in her extra-marital relationship - despite the bigoted disapproval of her contemporaries - so long as she does so in an
ethical manner. This is, in my view, a striking example of Mr Christ's progressive moral views, at odds with the times in which he lived, which are no doubt in large part a reason for his religion still maintaining adherents in many human-inhabited territories to this day.
32.
I therefore find that there is nothing
inherent in the Christian Religion which has the effect of requiring its
members to abstain from participating in events that provide succour, support and validation to the EML community. On the contrary, I am confident that Mr Christ
would have been an enthusiastic participant in the Valentine’s Day Disco that
Mr Lewis arranged. (I note, in passing, that Mr Lewis’ evidence, which I
accept, was that the Disco was a great success and was not adversely affected
by Dr Taylor’s one-woman boycott.)
33.
In the circumstances, I do not shy away
from the conclusion that Dr Taylor’s actions were motivated not by her religious beliefs but rather by randyphobia (or, more properly, EML-ophobia). I find that Dr Taylor has used the
fig-leaf of her apparent adherence to the Christian Religion as cover for her hateful and unpleasant views, which are not acceptable in a modern democratic
society. It follows that the Trust was entirely justified in dismissing her.
34.
I am
grateful to counsel for their assistance in this case. I invite counsel to draw
up an appropriate order reflecting my conclusions.
Good Lord. How terrible.
ReplyDeleteThe NHS still exists in 2050?
Yes, that surprised me too. It seems as if nothing of any substance is going to change.
Delete