Nwachukwu Egbunike | Sunday, 15 June 2008

Uncivil conduct

Refusing to officiate at the celebration of gay civil partnerships may cost a British woman her job. 

Lillian LadeleLillian Ladele, a Nigerian-born British registrar, has a conscience which does not permit her to officiate at the registration of “civil partnerships” for same-sex couples. Her employer, the Islington Borough in North London, says that she can keep her conscience, but not her £31,000 job. Now Ms Ladele has taken her employers to court for discriminating against her religious beliefs.

Islington is Britain’s third most popular borough for civil partnerships and more than 600 gay couples have had ceremonies there since the new form of relationship was legalised in December 2005. But Ladele holds the orthodox Christian view that “marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of others and that this is the God-ordained place for sexual relations.” This constitutes, according to her employers, “discriminating against the homosexual community.” Ms Ladele insists that she has never actually discriminated against anyone, as she has been swapping shifts with her colleagues to avoid tying the knot for same-sex couples.

So basically Lillian Ladele is being threatened with punishment for the thought crime of regarding same-sex marriage as sinful. In fact the punishment began when she voiced misgivings about the new arrangements in August 2004 with her boss, Helen Mendez-Childs. Ms Mendez-Childs ridiculed her and told her that her views were like denying marriage to a black couple. Later on she was denied opportunities to preside over lucrative weddings staged at special premises. She says that her colleagues began to act in a “different, hostile way towards me.” Finally, the borough launched an investigation last year into whether she was guilty of “gross misconduct”.

Writing from Nigeria, I find it amazing that objecting to same-sex marriage constitutes gross misconduct and same-sex marriage doesn’t. It is astonishing that the country which for centuries has regarded itself as the beacon of human freedom should have sunk so low as to punish a woman for following her conscience. And not about a trivial matter, either, but about the nature of the most fundamental of human relationships. I would hazard a guess that 90 percent of the world would agree with Ms Ladele. She does not represent an unhinged minority.

No, it’s probably closer to 98 percent. In fact, the lunacy of gay marriage threatens to split the Anglican Church. Nigerian’s Jasper Akionla, Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, and other African Bishops have stated time and again that it goes against the Gospel, which paradoxically came to us through European missionaries. Akionla is not a lone voice in this regard. The former Nigerian government of Olusegun Obasanjo insisted that it goes against our value system as Africans.

I sometimes wonder if Mother England’s insistence on democratic freedoms is not sheer hypocrisy. On the one hand, we hear her politicians pontificating about Robert Mugabe’s tyranny and abuse of democratic process in Zimbabwe. Yet when a woman asserts her natural right to behave in accordance with a rational conscience, she is bullied, ostracised and threatened with the loss of her job. Ladele’s case shows that “democracy” can also become a monster. Why should your livelihood be threatened because you hold contrary views? Or is freedom of religion dependent on a majority opinion?

What I found excruciatingly offensive was the suggestion that Lillian Ladele’s views were analogous to racism. In fact, I suspect that a subtle new 21st Century racism underlies the harshness with which she is being treated. Even though she represents a traditional moral view, even though it violates her religious views, even though 98 percent of the world agrees, she is not being taken seriously. I suspect that Islington Borough’s argument ultimately is that opposition to same-sex marriage is a primitive way of thinking fit for uncultured people. It is tantamount to racism.

I applaud my sister, Ladele, because no sane Yoruba will acquiescence in such absurdity. What will she tell her relatives? That she has been officiating at gay weddings? Tufiakwa, God forbid! “To most of us mere mortals,” Olukayode Thomas of one of Nigeria’s largest newspapers, The Guardian, writes, “a job that pays about N7 million a year plus other fringe benefits, a dream car, mortgage on a nice house in a good neighbourhood and other goodies of life in a society that works like five fingers, is the ideal job. Many who place material things above their souls will give their arms and legs to keep it.” Well done, Lillian, for daring to swim against the tide!   

Nwachukwu Egbunike is a book editor in Ibadan, Nigeria.

Comments to Uncivil conduct have been disabled. Thank you for your contribution.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
J. Roberto Bonilla A. said... Nicaragua | Sun, 15 Jun 2008 at 5:48 am

Lyllian:

Gooood.  Very good.  A will that commands to consider more valuable the conscience than well being is something to appreciate and respect.  The world is as is because, in first place, we do not respect ourselves when we let others establish moral rules we know are against God’s will therefore against nature.  Heroes, real heroes, like you Ms. Ladele is what the world needs just to change the trend of things.  God is blessing you.

J. Roberto Bonilla A.



Darren Hall said... United States | Sun, 15 Jun 2008 at 4:25 am

I believe we`re going to see much more of this type of action.
I think of it as “civil disobedience” by the conservative/religious/right/traditionalists.
One need not have a religious view to abhor this recognition of sexual perversity.
Those who are pro-"gay" nearly always focus on religious and tradional objections in defense of this “lifestyle”.
All the “inborn/biological” arguments have have not even come close to deserving any serious consideration. The “traditional"(read:natural/biological/ God ordained)man-woman coupling is OBVIOUS as the way humans are meant to relate sexually.
“Gays” et al. can do as they like, but this “relationship” does not merit any social or legal recognituion.



Dave said... -- | Sun, 15 Jun 2008 at 2:20 am

What comes down to is simply this - is it legal for a registrar to refuse to officiate for ANY reason.  If so then the gov’t has no case, if not then she has no case. It sounds like she was doing it in a non-offensive way and it was hurting no one, but “religious beliefs” is one of the most over used excuses for bigotry.  If you are so offended by Western folk “pontificating” over the issues in Zimbabwe and other African countries the answer is clear - refuse to accept any money, food aid, health aid ,military aid etc., and work out your own problems free of any interference.  Of course that means that all refugees need to be stopped at the border, all those who move to other countries and send money home to their families will have to either stop or return to their country.  You want to throw out silly accusations of racism?  Here’s something to think about - LGBT people are assaulted, raped and murdered, legislated against, attacked by religious “leaders” in your country and others on the African continent.  That is “a primitive way of thinking fit for uncultured people” and it makes any racism in this case pale by comparison.

In the real world, if you can’t do your job you are removed from it.  I have not doubt that is she is the wonderful person you say she is then another job would be readily available.



Mark Mercer said... Canada | Sun, 15 Jun 2008 at 2:11 am

I don’t see the problem.  A person hired to do a job discovers she is unable to do it and, so, her employer cans her.  Unfortunate, certainly, and sad, but no one’s rights were denied or aspirations unfairly blocked.  Her employer, I would agree, was narrow-minded and unkind in not going along with the perfectly fine arrangement she had worked out to have others perform the ceremony when the couple was same-sexed.  Those are the sorts of arrangements that can help to smooth our path to a society indifferent to homosexuality.  Her employer acted poorly, then, but not wrongly.



Gail F said... United States | Sun, 15 Jun 2008 at 1:04 am

Nwachukwu: No, it’s not a subtle form of racism. Extremists are accusing anyone who believes that marriage cannot be otherwise than a union between a man and a woman of civil rights abuse because so many people feel guilty about how they or their parents’ generation treated black people. It is happening in the United States too, and the comparison is supposed to shut you up fast.

Just last week I was explaining to my teenage daughter, who holds the sensible view that only men and women can get married, that activists use the technique of claiming civil rights abuses to confuse people, and that she needs to know that will happen and be ready with an answer. Even if her answer is just a calm “No, it is not like that at all,” it will show that she will not melt into a guilty puddle at the very idea and that the conversation is not over.

I don’t know what to say about England or the Anglicans, they make no sense to me either. I applaud Lillian Ladele and people like her. They must stay strong or what will happen to England, and everyone else as well?


Page 4 of 4 : « First  <  2 3 4