The sexuality of cakes has become an issue yet again: this time in Dublin rather than Belfast. In May 2016, an unnamed man placed an order with a bakery in Dublin for a cake decorated with the (slightly garbled) words:
“BY THE GRACE OF THE GOOD LORD, I (name redacted), ORIGINALLY OF (address redacted) and c/o (other addresses redacted) that in my honest opinion – ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IS A PERVERSION OF EQUALITY and the 34th Amendment to the Irish Constitution should be REPEALED.” Continue reading →
May a Jew be compelled by his employer not to work on the Sabbath? That question recently came before the Québec Human Rights Tribunal.
In Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Zilberg) c. 9220-3454 Québec Inc. (Spa Liv Zen (Spa Orazen))2017 QCTDP 13 (CanLII), the claimant, Richard Zilberg, was a hairstylist employed by Spa Orazen and its owner, Iris Gressy. He had a strong Jewish identity and attachment to his religion but chose not to observe Shabbat. So he worked six days a week including Saturday – which was the busiest day of the week at the salon. .
In 2012, Ms Gressy, who was herself Jewish, suggested that Mr Zilberg should stop working on Saturdays because he was a Jew. Continue reading →
In Public Law for Everyone, Professor Mark Elliott’s post looks in some detail (albeit preliminarily) at how the EU (Withdrawal) Bill works, and comments on some of the key constitutional issues that it raises, here. As a taster (for both Brexiteers and Remainers), he concludes: Continue reading →
In December 2014 we notedCumhuriyetçi Eğitim ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfi v Turkey ECHR 1346 [in French], in whichthe applicant Foundation for Republican Instruction and Culture, which was established as a non-profit entity to manage a number of Alevi places of worship [cemevis],complained about the refusal of the Directorate of Religious Affairs to pay its electricity bills . The Directorate’s grounds for refusal had been that the mechanism for paying the bills was intended to benefit places of worship and cemevis could not be places of worship because there was no such religion as Alevism, historically or scientifically [il n’existe pas de religion appelée « la religion alévie », ni sur le plan historique ni sur le plan scientifique]. The Foundation argued that being deprived of the privilege of free electricity was discrimination, contrary to Article 14 ECHR taken together with Article 9 and contrary to Article 9 on its own. Continue reading →
And in a week overshadowed by the horrendous fire at Grenfell Tower and the fallout from the General Election …
Access for Northern Ireland women to free abortion in England
On Thursday we posted Frank’s analysis of R (A and B) v Secretary of State for Health UKSC 41 in which the Supreme Court considered:
Was the Secretary of State ‘s failure to exercise his power to require abortion services to be provided through the NHS in England to women ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland unlawful as a failure to discharge his duty under s 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 to “take such steps as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements” for services?
Does the continuing failure to provide free abortion services in England to women ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland infringe Articles 14 (discrimination) and 8 (private and family life) ECHR?
The appeal was dismissed by a 3-2 majority, and we suggested that it is quite possible that the case is bound for Strasbourg. Continue reading →
In February 2007 some of the applicants, Ahmadi Muslims, decided to set up a new religious association, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, to be based in Sandanski: the others joined them subsequently. The first applicant, Mr Metodiev, applied to the district court of Sofia to register the new association under the Religions Act and the court sought the opinion of the Department for Religious Affairs – and denied the application. Continue reading →
In Re an application by Laura Smyth for Judicial Review, Colton J has quashed the General Register Office’s decision to refuse an application for authorisation for a humanist marriage in Northern Ireland on the grounds that the refusal breached the applicant’s ECHR rights. He ordered the GRO to grant the application, which would give temporary authorisation for a humanist celebrant to perform a legally valid and binding humanist wedding ceremony. Continue reading →