Libby Blaxall

Only a few weeks back the government minister for communication Eric Pickles made a bold statement that the days of the state trying to suppress Christianity and other faiths are over. Since then the controversial case of Duke Amachree presents a challenge and contradiction to this claim. Duke appealed an unfair dismissal claim after he was sacked from his job where he'd worked for 18 years after mentioning God in the work place.

He lost his case on 11th August as an employment tribunal ruled that it was reasonable for Wandsworth Council to dismiss Duke on grounds of gross misconduct for suggesting to a client with an incurable illness not to give up hope and to try putting her faith in God. The tribunal found that the council had not discriminated against Mr Amachree on the basis of his religion and furthermore took the view that Duke had breached confidentiality by publicising his case.

It would appear that the end to suppression to Christians was either just an optimistic claim from a government member, or perhaps a matter of waiting for legislation to be passed in due time, to support such cases.

Christian Concern for Our Nation published the proceedings of his case in conjunction with the Christian Legal Centre, who worked with him throughout and will continue to do so in the appeal. To discuss this case and what it means for Christians in the workplace, Jonathan Bellamy caught up with Libby Blaxall from CLC.

Jonathan: Why was Mr Amachree losing this case such a big surprise for you at the CLC?

Libby: We were shocked the tribunal upheld the decision to dismiss him being fair. The way that he was treated was far too draconian for what he actually said. As you know and as many people know, Mr Amachree was merely offering encouragement and hope at the end of an interview with a client. He had a two to three minute conversation with a lady and for that to result in dismissal is absolutely shocking for us. We thought that the tribunal would see sense. That they'd see that Wandsworth Council had acted completely over the top, but instead we received judgements which completely concurred with Wandsworth Council's response and which paints a very bad picture for Christians trying to live out their faith in the workplace.

Jonathan: I was going to ask you that question actually. What precedent do you think this sets, because often with legal proceedings, court actions can set a standard for cases to follow? What do you think this is going to mean for other Christians in the work place?

Libby: I think the immediate concern for Christians is that they'll feel a lot more fearful about what they can't and can say. Will they be able to live out their Christian faith at work? Will they be able to respond to comments from colleagues or from clients, or will they be forever wondering which policy they will be breaking if they so much as mention the fact that they are a Christian and that they believe that God can heal or can answer prayer, or anything like that.

Jonathan: Do you think Christians should continue to be open about their faith in spite of charges that may be brought against them?

Libby: Yes absolutely. The law doesn't prohibit us from talking about our faith in the workplace. In fact it prohibits discrimination against people of faith. Obviously we need to be wise and we don't go around proselytising and evangelising all the time, we're not at work to do that, we're at work to work. However we're also to be ourselves and to live out our faith, so when the opportunity arises, of course we should be allowed to speak about our faith.

Duke Amachree

Jonathan: It seems that Mr Amachree had a strong defence simply from a human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of expression point of view. How was this overwritten or overruled?

Libby: Well that would be concerned with the religious discrimination part of the claim. What they do is they compare Mr Amachree's position with anybody else who's done the same thing but wasn't a Christian. They said that there's no way that they would be treated differently. In fact, whether Mr Amachree had been a Christian or not he would have been treated in the same way. Well, we disagree with that. We think that because he was a Christian, because he dared to share his encouragements and his faith, his human rights were violated and his freedom of speech was broken that day and have not been upheld by a court of law, who say that actually it's more important that the employer controls what employees can and can't say regardless of that employee's faith.

Jonathan: At the Christian Legal Centre you obviously deal with a lot of cases and you hear about a lot of cases where Christians are being discriminated or unfairly treated. What was your reaction when you heard Eric Pickles make his statement that the government would no longer try to suppress Christianity?

Libby: It's a very encouraging statement, but I think we'll have to see how it's worked out. The last government has done a lot of damage to Christian liberties in the workplace. I really hope and pray that this next government will recognise how important it is for people to live out their faith in the workplace and also see the huge contribution that faith makes to society as a whole. We can only wait and see what happens, but it's a positive statement and we hope that the results will be positive.

Jonathan: One of the interesting things from the Amachree case was the council informed the solicitor that even saying 'God bless' would warrant an investigation if the client complained, which seems extraordinary. Do you think that that kind of investigation applies to other faiths in the same way?

Libby: Well the council would assure us that of course it does, but I'm not sure I would believe them on that. We see from many of our cases that it's the Christians who are being pulled up for talking about their faith and for wearing symbols of their faith. It's not the Muslims, it's not the Hindus, and it's not people of other faiths or indeed people of no faith. I'm not sure that I can trust Wandsworth Council when they make statements like that.

Jonathan: Do you ever have cases where Christians are testing that and actually saying that they have been affected or offended by somebody's comment towards them?

Libby: Interestingly we haven't yet, maybe that's to come. I think that shows that Christians are not out there to look for offence themselves, but they do want to be protected when they say something which means a lot to them and which they hope would change somebody's life. These Christian clients of ours are not saying things because they want to cause a problem. They're speaking out of hope and experience themselves, but we'll wait and see if anyone gets offended by a different religious comment.

Jonathan: Finally, I understand that you're looking to file an appeal for the case. How will that go forward and how confident are you for a change of ruling?

Libby: We'll be consulting with Duke and the rest of the legal team over the next few weeks. We hope and pray that justice will be done at the employment appeal tribunal. Obviously this is a shocking ruling. Many Christians and others have been surprised by what has happened. I think what we need to be doing now is praying that justice will be done and that Duke's rights to express his faith in the workplace in accordance with the law are protected and that it stands that he was unfairly dismissed.