Scottish Court Awards Damages for Franklin Graham's Cancelled Event

 In Billy Graham Evangelistic Association v. Scottish Event Campus Limited, (Glascow Sheriff's Ct., Oct. 24, 2022), a trial court in Scotland concluded that a large arena in Scotland whose majority owner is the city of Glascow violated the Equality Act when it cancelled an appearance by evangelist Franklin Graham because of concern that he might make homophobic and Islamophobic comments during his appearance. The court awarded Graham's organization damages equivalent to $112,000(US). The court said in part:

The event was cancelled because of (a) the religious or philosophical beliefs of the pursuer and Franklin Graham as viewed by the defender and (b) the reaction by others to the religious or philosophical beliefs professed by the pursuer and/or Franklin Graham. Those objectors had included the defender’s principal shareholder, its sponsor, objectors on social media, some press, an MSP and persons representing contrasting religious views.

(See prior related posting.) Charlotte Observer and BBC News report on the decision.

Scottish Court Invalidates COVID Regulations Closing Churches

In In the cause of Philip for Judicial Review of the closure of places of worship in Scotland, (Ct. Sess. O.H., March 24. 2021), Scotland's Outer House of the Court of Session held that Regulations closing places of worship during the COVID-19 pandemic violate petitioner's right to worship under Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said in part:

[S]ince the Regulations do interfere with the constitutional right of the petitioners to worship, notwithstanding that they have as their primary purpose the protection of health and preservation of life, they will be beyond the constitutional competence of the respondents (at least insofar as the petitioners and the additional party are concerned) if that interference is not proportionate...

[W]ithout in any way questioning the science which underlay the respondents’ decision-making, I conclude that the respondents have failed to show that no less intrusive means than the Regulations were available to address their aim of reducing risk to a significant extent. Standing the advice they had at the time, they have not demonstrated why there was an unacceptable degree of risk by continuing to allow places of worship which employed effective mitigation measures and had good ventilation to admit a limited number of people for communal worship.... Even if I am wrong in reaching that conclusion, the respondents have in any event not demonstrated why it was necessary to ban private prayer, the reasons which were given for that recommendation being insufficient to withstand even the lowest degree of scrutiny.

Law & Religion UK and Christian Post report on the decision.

Scottish Parliament Passes Hate Crime Bill

According to BBC News, the Scottish Parliament last week passed the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill (full text). Among other things, the new law (§3(2)) outlaws threatening or abusive behavior or communications made with the intent to stir up hatred against a group based on its religion or perceived religious affiliation, or based on the group's sexual orientation or transgender identity. It goes on to provide (§9A), however,:

... [B]ehaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes—

(a) discussion or criticism of matters relating to—(i) age, (ii) disability, (iii) sexual orientation, (iv) transgender identity,(v) variations in sex characteristics,

(b) discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards— (i) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion, (ii) religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice, (iii) the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief,

(c) proselytising, or

(d) urging of persons to cease practising their religion.

The bill (§16) also abolishes the common law offense of blasphemy.

Scottish Court Lets Franklin Graham Move Ahead With Suit Over Cancelled Appearance

Last week, a Sheriff's Court in Scotland handed down an initial decision in a suit by evangelist Franklin Graham whose appearance at a large arena in Glasgow was cancelled by the arena operators after the Glasgow City Council complained that there was a potential for Graham to make homophobic and Islamophobic comments during his appearance.  In Billy Graham Evangelistic Association v. Scottish Event Campus Ltd., (Glasgow Sheriffdom, Feb. 16, 2021), the court held that it needed to hear evidence on Graham's claim that the cancellation of his event violated the Equality Act's prohibition on religious discrimination. Summarizing the arguments of the parties, the court said in part:

The defender’s case includes ... averments that there was potential for public order issues with the event....

The defender also avers... that "the staging of the event would bring the defender into disrepute and terminated the Contract on that basis. It did not terminate the event as a result of the religious views of the pursuer or Mr Franklin Graham."

Further ... the defender avers that: "It does not discriminate against any group or individual when deciding on whether to accept a booking. It was irrelevant to the defender that the pursuer was seeking to express religious views. The reason the Contract was terminated was due to the risk to the defender’s reputation arising from the risk of violent protests at a public event....

[However] The pursuer avers that the event was a forum for the proclamation of the Christian gospel in accordance with mainstream evangelical Christian teaching....

“The fact that the defender now avers that it does host a range of faith-based events to which it takes no objection – the defender offers as an example the annual conference of Jehovah’s Witnesses – shows precisely that the defender does operate a policy of discrimination against groups or individuals in that only those with views or religious positions which the defender deems to be ‘acceptable’ will be permitted to hire its premises.

Scottish Legal News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Frank Cranmer for the lead.]

Scottish Appeals Court Says Government Did Not Adequately Consider Refugees' Claim of Conversion To Christianity

In TF and MA v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (Scot. Ct. Sess., Aug. 30, 2018), Scotland's Inner House, Court of Session, held that the Secretary of State and appellate tribunals had failed to adequately consider certain evidence that Iranian asylum seekers had genuinely converted to Christianity after leaving Iran. All the parties agreed that individuals who converted from Islam to Christianity face a risk of persecution of forced to return to Iran. At issue however was:

the status of evidence from church leaders (or others holding positions of responsibility within a church) about the conduct of a person who has begun the process of admission into the church and as to the sincerity of his conversion to Christianity; as to the weight to be given to such evidence; and whether the usefulness of such evidence as a guide to the genuineness of the sur place conversion is undermined by findings that, in relation to other matters, the appellant, the applicant for asylum, has given evidence which is untrue or unreliable and/or may be said to undermine his basic credibility.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

UK Employment Tribunal Says Scottish Independence Is Protected Philosophical Belief

The United Kingdom's Equality Act prohibits not just religious discrimination, but also discrimination on the basis of any philosophical belief.  Scotland's Sunday Herald reports that a Scottish Employment Tribunal has held that Scottish independence qualifies as a philosophical belief under the statute.  The case was brought by Christopher McEleny, a Scottish National Party member of a local Council who was planning to run for an SNP leadership position.  McEleny contended that the Ministry of Defense illegally discriminated against because of his independence beliefs when it suspended. his security clearance.  This led to his being fired from his position as an electrician at a munitions site.  Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Scottish Court Convicts For Anti-Semitic YouTube Video

The Jewish Chronicle reports that a Sheriff's Court in Airdrie, Scotland yesterday found 30-year old Mark Meechan guilty of a hate crime for a YouTube posting that went viral. The video featured a dog owned by Meechan's girlfriend.  Meechan had trained the dog to give a Nazi salute when Meechan said "sieg heil" or "gas the Jews."  Meechan, who has apologized, says the video was his attempt to annoy his girl friend:

My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is, so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi.

The Sheriff's Court judge however ruled:

The accused knew that the material was offensive and knew why it was offensive. He would have known it was grossly offensive to many Jewish people.

Sentencing in the case is scheduled for April 23.

Scotland Investigates Upsurge In Prisoner Requests For Kosher Meals

The Forward reported yesterday that in Scotland, the Inspectorate of Prisons has begun an investigation into why there has been a huge upsurge in inmates requesting kosher meals.  The increase has added $313,000 per year to the cost of operating Scottish prisons.  According to the news report:

Inmates are believed to have started asking for kosher food after watching “Orange is the New Black,” the American television show in which a character named Cindy Hayes, played by Adrienne Moore, converts to Judaism to get “better quality food,” as she explains it in the series.

At one Edinburgh prison, 111 prisoners are being served kosher meals, and it is thought that hundreds of prisoners across the United Kingdom have applied to change their religion to Judaism since the episode aired in 2015.

Supporters of Scottish Independence Promise Protection of Catholic Schools

On Thursday, voters in Scotland will cast ballots on whether Scotland should break away from the United Kingdom and become an independent country. (Background from Wikipedia.) According to yesterday's Herald Scotland, just days ahead of the vote Roseanna Cunningham, the country's Legal Affairs Minister, promised that in the event of independence, parochial schools will be protected.  She said:

A Yes vote means that Scotland will have a written constitution and that means everyone can be assured that the constitution in place on Independence Day will uphold the rights and liberties of all, including freedom of religion and the protection of Catholic education.

In an advertisement yesterday, 100 members of the Catholic community urged a "yes" vote on independence.

Scottish Appeals Panel Upholds Catholic Agency's Adoption Criteria

In St. Margaret's Children and Family Care Society v. Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, (SCAP, Jan. 31, 2014), the Scottish Charity Appeals Panel overturned the decision of the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator that had directed a Catholic adoption agency to end its adoption placement preference for Catholic couples who have been married for at least two years and its placing on low preference non-Catholics and same-sex couples (since they can only enter civil partnerships). The Appeals Panel held that the agency is a religious organization that can assert its, and its members, right to freedom of religious expression under Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Discussing application of the Equality Act, the Appeals Panel said:

The Panel has decided that there is indirect discrimination but that indirect discrimination is allowed in terms of The Equality Act because it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Panel found both the charities exception and the religious exception as contained in The Equality Act to apply....

BBC News reports on the decision. Law & Religion UK blog discusses the opinion at greater length.