Faith on trial

Christian beliefs have yet to receive protection under law

Artillery Row

It has been four years since I lost my job as a disability assessor for the Department of Work and Pensions. Many will already be aware that this was due to my refusal, on the grounds of my Christian faith, to use transgender pronouns. I believe that to do so would be to lie.

I initially took my case to the Employment Tribunal where a ruling was made that my belief that God made us “male and female in His image”, taken from Genesis 1:27 in the Bible, was “incompatible with human dignity” and “unworthy of consideration in a democratic society”. This I understand to be legalese meaning that my belief in God and the dishonesty of using transgender pronouns is akin to Nazism. 

Ethical veganism is protected, but not belief in God

Indeed, when the appeal was heard in March 2022, much emphasis was placed on this. The initial tribunal in 2019 also implied that everyone was obliged to accept the premises of transgender ideology, and that transgender beliefs were superior in law to other beliefs.

My appeal has now concluded, and it has been declared that my Christian faith is not akin to Nazism and can be held in good conscience. This I welcome. The problem is that they have not extended the protection of the law of the land to those beliefs. They have said I can believe in God and Creation, but that belief has no standing before the law. Ethical veganism and transgender ideology are protected, but not belief in God, it seems.

It appears to have been argued that some who profess to be Christians don’t agree with me, and so I am not a proper Christian. This seems totally alien to the wording of the Equality Act to me, and that stating that the Bible is the foundational document of the Christian Church is entirely reasonable. The court, however, seems to think that this is not so.

I am arguing that the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s failure to protect my beliefs is a failure to protect belief in God full stop. My argument is simply this. God made all things. My case is about God making all things. If there was anything that God did not make, He cannot be God. He made mankind, and in the Bible we are told that He made us in His image, both male and female. Therefore, to dismiss my belief on the grounds that some religious people believe that God did not make all things is absurd. If a person claims to be Christian but denies God’s power in creation, are they not more akin to an atheist? Are they not believing in a little god, rather than God Almighty?

Now I know that someone will say that if I make a cheese sandwich, God did not make that, but we need to return to first causes. If there is anything outside of God’s control, He cannot be God.

Now the EAT will apparently not protect belief in God. Multitudes of people believe in God. Why won’t the courts protect their beliefs?

Forcing people to go against their conscience at work is a dangerous path

As a result of the EAT’s ruling, I shall be appealing along with my excellent legal team from the Christian Legal Centre. The issues here affect us all, including those who do not believe in God. Forcing us to use transgender pronouns is forced speech, something that has significant and sweeping implications. That is why I have suggested that transgender people, along with the judges and everyone else should support my case, as we all have just simply too much to lose if we become subject to forced language. What’s not to like about free speech?

Others have suggested that, as a Government employed doctor, I should just do as my employers tell me. Medicine without ethics is dangerous. Forcing people to go against their conscience at work is a dangerous path to follow, and that is precisely the reason why the Equalities Act is being discussed here in the courts.

Although I have been labelled unkind and wrong, I believe that the onus is on the Government to prove that a person can change sex. We, however, already know that it is impossible. That a person can never change sex is principle of my Christian faith, but it is just as much the plain position of sound medical science. For that reason, if I, through coercive control and force, am made to use language in a new and dishonest way, I must also believe that I am doing my patients harm and in a manner of lying. Forcing me to use transgender pronouns is state sponsored coercive control.

We ought to be telling our children in schools the truth. We should be saying to them that, if they are a girl, that is brilliant; that that is who they are, and that cannot change. That is the truth. If they are a boy, we should be saying that that is wonderful, and that that is what they will always unchangeably be. That is the truth. Anything less, or else, is a lie and harmful. Doctors everywhere should be speaking up and saying this, and they should have the full backing of the General Medical Council for doing so. Doctors should not be going along with a lie to please their patients.

For this reason I believe that the issues raised in my case are important to all of us. If I do not win the freedom to both believe and practice my Christian faith, every single one of us will lose on principle.

The courts, I believe, have a duty to show that all animals are equal. Some animals cannot and must never be declared to be more equal than others.

I stand by my Christian convictions.

Enjoying The Critic online? It's even better in print

Try five issues of Britain’s newest magazine for £10

Critic magazine cover