Magistrate refuses to adopt the law

Times, Oct 23rd ‘Christian JP Refused to Rule on Gay Adoption’.

A Magistrate is claiming for unfair dismissal at the employment tribunal because he was denied his request not to sit on cases involving gay adoption, with which he does not agree on religious grounds. When his request was denied he resigned, hence his claim. He lost at tribunal and is now on appeal. According to The Times Mr McClintock believed that placement with a gay couple was ‘an experiment in social science’. His argument on appeal at least appears to have been based on his ‘reasonable and responsible opinion as a scientific officer’. He said ‘In my view the best interests of a chlid are best served by a dual-gender upbringing’. 

I’m sorry, am I missing something? We ALL have our personal views about things but isn’t it pretty fundamental that if you are involved in the legal system you leave your baggage at the door and get on with the job at hand? I don’t get to say ‘actually I don’t want to represent this client because I don’t agree with his beliefs about the role of women’ and a Judge doesn’t get to say ‘actually I’d rather not deal with this case because its a bit difficult, or a bit unpleasant’. And none of us get to say ‘you know what? I don’t much like that bit of the law, would you mind if someone else dealt with it?’ Continue Reading…

Flexible Working – Flexible for whom?

The TUC point out what ought to be blindingly obvious, namely that John Redwoods proposals require a change in European Law (or even leaving the EU), and are incompatible with the noises Cameron is making about flexible working and family friendly policies, and would have a serious knock on effect on the rights of workers. It’s made nice soundbites in the news but its wholly impractical and retrograde.