Court case against Cambridge College - philosophical and religious belief

[PinkDodgems]

Fitzwilliam College refused to allow a Christian group to hold its conference there because, in the words of its lawyer:
"college staff had conducted internet research about Christian Concern, which “gave rise to concerns about the reaction of the college’s students if the booking was accepted”, he said, adding that the claimant’s booking was rejected on the grounds that it is “not compatible with the values of the college”.
www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/christian-group-blocked-from-holding-conference-at-cambridge-college/ar-AA11SrcJ?ocid

I'm probably missing some important

Possibly they might think large numbers of Muslim immigrants could be a problem for western social values.

And here is the problem - people do characterize views like that as "anti-Islam" among other things.

But actually - it's a real question. The assumption by certain progressive people that large numbers of new people with new ideas won't affect the social life of a nation is just that, an assumption. There are lots of good political and historic reasons to think that it might not be the case.

And then there is the question - what would be the consequences? Would they be worth the risk?

Calling the viewpoint anti-Islam or xenophobic and trying to stop it from happening is just another form of No Debate.

Hit post too soon:
I'm probably missing something important here but didn't that bakery in Northern Ireland win their case that they didn't have to provide goods or services which disagreed with the beliefs of their owners, and didn't have to bake a cake supporting gay marriage? Presumably then, a venue could turn away a fundraiser for gay marriage if it contradicted their beliefs?
And surely then a venue can refuse a conference run by an organisation looking at legal avenues to block gay marriage, if the venue have a policy which states they are anti-discrimination?
What's the difference between the two?
The first case outcome seemed sensible to me, but I do tend towards fairness so I don't think conservative Christians can complain when the shoe is on the other foot.

In the US, Cambridge’s actions would be protected under the first amendment because they have a right not to be required to host speech they don’t agree with (as that’s seen as a form of speech). The first amendment only requires the government not to discriminate, it’s other laws that prevent companies from discriminating and they tend to be fairly limited are trumped by the constitution. So requiring them not to discriminate on the basis of religion wouldnt hold if it forced them to host speech they didn’t agree with.

I'm not so sure about that.

Many universities in the US receive public money.

But underlying all of this is the whole idea that universities are meant to be places where people discuss all kinds of ideas. And they are protected with special regulations to allow that to happen.

The fact that they no longer can do that is very worrying.

This would not be a university debate though, this would be a conference using their rooms which is different. They’d have no involvement in the discussion, and it wouldn’t be a university type debate or discussion as there’d be no opposing viewpoint.

It seems bizarre to think there’s a legal right to use university rooms for whatever you want. Of course we have the right to free speech, that doesn’t mean we have a legal right to be hosted by Fitzwilliam College.

"a group that believes human rights apply to human beings who are still in the womb"

I see this as parallel to the trans issue, as it places the rights of one group above those of another, that other being in both cases, women and girls.

And with regard to attitudes to Islam, twice in the last week I have heard priests on Thought for the Day quoting the Queen at Lambeth speaking of the duty of the Church of England to protect the rights of other religious groups. And many Christian groups get on perfectly well with Muslims, Jews and. I believe, Sikhs. Probably CC would not regard them as proper Christians.

Seems a bit similar to this case?

www.heraldscotland.com/news/19363377.edinburgh-council-apologises-pays-25-000-damages-banning-anti-gay-us-preacher/

The point with the bakery in Northern Ireland was that they DIDN'T refuse to bake a cake, they refused to ice a message onto it with which they disagreed. So the case was about compelled speech, rather than denial of service. And, further, by going into the cake making and decorating business they hadn't set up any expectation their "voice" was for hire for political messaging.

Hiring out rooms for conferences is more like baking the cake than icing a message on it. Also it's quite expected that people will voice various political and religious beliefs in a conference setting. So I would think that's something you've accepted by going into that line of business.

But this isn't a university discussion. It's a conference venue.

True, the government can restrict speech as part of an exchange.

Yes a conference, but not allowed because it would supposedly challenge the values of the students and the university.

What values - the value of freedom to think about all kinds of ideas and discuss them?

Apparently not.

If Fitz has any CICCU (Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union) members, they’re probably not going to be happy about it. Because Christian Concern is pretty on brand for CICCU. Apparently they’ve mellowed since the early noughties & the infamous Mission Week furore over a speaker saying bestiality & homosexuality = essentially the same (well, in external/public interactions, at least); but they’re all about the US-style evangelism &c. Catholics aren’t Christians to lots of them; never mind Muslims being an issue. Multiple Colleges have banned CICCU Members either individually or as policy from their multifaith societies because their behaviour was so dreadful they made it impossible for the societies to function.

So they’ve also almost certainly made it very clear to actual students that they’re unwelcome in their own College. Stellar move, that.

Fitzwilliam does have a college CICCU group.

The Fitzwilliam College CICCU group of evangelical Christians, committed to spreading their brand of Christianity, meets regularly in rooms provided by Fitzwilliam College.

Well that might make for somewhat awkward times then. Be interesting to see what response they make 🤔

Wasn’t there a similar issue with Worcester College at Oxford last year? From what I recall some student activists complained, David Isaacs (ex Stonewall) got involved and there was some discussion in Parliament. I can’t quite remember but I think there was an investigation where the activists claims were found to be unwarranted. I imagine this may be brought up in proceedings.

Whilst not precedent, this case from 2021 is illustrative on the law regarding religious discrimination when praising services to the public localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/litigation-and-enforcement/400-litigation-news/46720-religious-organisation-wins-county-court-ruling-over-removal-by-council-of-adverts-on-buses

And Islamic organisations are explicitly anti-Christian, anti-Judaism, anti-Buddhist, anti-zosterfarianism, anti-humanist, anti-paganism...

"We believe this is the true way" tends to be pretty exclusive for all beliefs. And if they don't believe theirs is the true way then what is the point?

If FW college were wanting this to go to court then they chose the right organisation.

CICCU (pronounced “kick you”, incidentally - Oxford have “oik you” & Durham have delusions of Oxbridge so yes, it’s “dick you”) might loathe Saints but they quite fancy the idea of being [non-literal] martyrs so I can’t imagine they’re going to stay silent…

Maybe it’s what this year’s carol service sermon will be about 🤷‍♀️

I'm probably missing something important here but didn't that bakery in Northern Ireland win their case that they didn't have to provide goods or services which disagreed with the beliefs of their owners, and didn't have to bake a cake supporting gay marriage?

The bakery was sued by the Equalities Commission of NI for refusing to provide a cake iced with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage". The bakery won because they would have refused to provide such a cake to any group. Therefore they weren't discriminating against any protected group.

The irony is that immediately after their win, another local business immediately said they would refuse to serve the bakery due to the bakery owners' beliefs. That's straight out discrimination. But they weren't sued. We can speculate that the ECNI had blown their litigation budget. Or we can speculate that the ECNI thought that the bakery had the Wrong Sort of Protected Beliefs, while the other business had the Right Sort.

That's the difference between the bakery and the college here. The bakery were not refusing to provide service to a protected group. The other business (and the college) are doing precisely that.

If you have ever encountered Christian Concern, you would take the same stance Fitzwilliam college!

I had them wanting to display their literature, when I refused their representative kept sneaking it into our leaflet display (which I removed as soon as I spotted them). Christian lack of concern for women

I have sympathy with the college too. But I'm a bit concerned about how human rights theory (and this is a worldwide thing) is becoming a bit "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others".