Permission to speak

Is Adrian Smith a Christian martyr or just a casualty of corporate conformism?

It's an everyday story of religion and society in 21st century Britain. A man, who happens to work for a housing trust, expresses an opinion on his Facebook page to the effect that churches should not be compelled to conduct gay marriages. He gets demoted and loses a third of his wages. He's suing. The Mail on Sunday has taken up his case. So has Cristina Odone, who compared the plight of Britain's Christians with that of the Nonconformists who left for the American colonies in the 17th century rather than submit to the established church.

Hmm. Adrian Smith's case certainly shows something, but whether this is really a story about religious freedom I have my doubts.

But let's look at that disputed Facebook post. Adrian Smith's considered view, expressed in response to a question from one of his online friends, was that

The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn't impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.

Which seems uncontentious enough. As Peter Tatchell has said, it's not a particularly homophobic comment. Indeed, it represents government policy. As the piece which Smith linked to shows (from the date, the incident took place in February) there are no plans to force places of worship to conduct gay weddings; merely a possibility that they might be allowed to do so. But misunderstanding the import of suggested legislation is not much of a reason for taking someone's job away from him. Unless there were aggravating factors (and Trafford Housing Trust has declined to go into much detail), this looks like an overreaction. It looks vindictive.

The Trust has issued a statement, the first two paragraphs of which, ominously, are taken up with self-congratulatory remarks about how it has been "rated as one of the best 100 public sector employers in the UK", has won various community award and received a number of "big ticks". The main charge against Adrian Smith appears to be that he is in breach of a condition in a new code of conduct which limits the use by employees of social networking sites. In particular, he made his comments in a page "that identified him as a manager at Trafford Housing Trust."

The Christian Institute has a template into which it invariably fits the cases that it highlights: a template of persecution. The template is that of Christians targeted and oppressed by a secularist establishment that is intolerant towards any expression of their faith, and most especially intolerant of Biblically-derived but politically incorrect opinions on matters such as homosexuality. It's a template that appeals as much to the Daily Mail as to Christian pressure groups such as the CI, because it provides a simple explanatory model covering everything from a street preacher calling on gay people to repent, to a local authority's alleged desire to replace Christmas with "Winterval".

Yet there's a huge variability even between individual instances of "oppression" championed by the Christian Institute. Adrian Smith merely expressed a personal opinion on his Facebook page, an opinion that had no relevance whatever to his job. Compare this with Lilian Ladele, the Islington registrar who has now taken her case for unfair dismissal to the European Court of Human Rights. She was disciplined for refusing to perform gay civil partnership ceremonies, which was part of her job. There's a difference, but it's a difference easily overlooked if you're predisposed to view all these cases as instances of religious persecution.

The fact that Adrian Smith was expressing a view derived from his understanding of Christianity is (or should be) incidental. The real question is whether, in a free and democratic society, an employer should have the right to limit what its employees do or think in a private capacity.

Smith's Facebook page was, we are told, readable only by friends (or at any rate by Facebook friends), but even had it been public the number of people who saw it will have been small. No one can have been under the impression that Smith was making the statement as an official representative of Trafford Housing Trust, even if he did mention his job in his personal profile. The very notion is absurd. Had he been commenting on housing policy or making offensive personal comments about colleagues, the Trust would have been entitled to take disciplinary action. But Smith's opinions on gay marriage or the Bible are utterly irrelevant to his functioning as a housing manager. Public or private, and so long as they are not criminally inciteful, his opinions are his business.

Trafford Housing Trust seems to have embraced (and even codified) a dangerous doctrine that their employees are never off-duty; that everything they do or say publicly is done or said on behalf of the company; that their opinions are no longer their own but they can only express views in accordance with company policy. In a free society, this is outrageous. Indeed, it is tyrannical. It so happened that Adrian Smith had an opinion about gay marriage. Someone else might have views about the Euro, or take part in a political protest, or have an unconventional sex life. This case is not really about religious freedom at all. It's about freedom to be yourself, even if you are fortunate enough to work for a company that has been "recognised by Investors in People with their Gold and Health and Wellbeing Awards."

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief
YouTube screengrab
Show Hide image

Interview: Momentum’s vice chair Jackie Walker on unity, antisemitism, and discipline in Labour

The leading pro-Corbyn campaigner sets out her plan for the party.

As Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters celebrate after his second win, Jackie Walker – vice chair of the pro-Corbyn campaign organisation Momentum, a Labour member and an activist – talks about the result and the next steps for Labour’s membership.

Walker is a controversial figure in the party. Her history as a black anti-racism activist and advocate for Palestine, and her Jewish background on both sides of her family, did not keep her from being accused of antisemitism for a February Facebook post about the African slave trade. In May, she was suspended from the Labour party for her comments, only to be reinstated a few weeks later after a meeting of Labour’s National Executive Committee.

Anger was reignited at an event hosted by Momentum that she spoke at during Labour party conference, on whether Labour has an antisemitism problem. Walker said the problem was “exaggerated” by Corbyn’s critics, and used as a “weapon of political mass destruction” by the media. (We spoke to Walker before this debate took place).

After a summer plagued by suspensions of Labour members, accusations of hateful speech on both sides, and calls for civility, Walker discusses what steps need to be taken forward to help bring the party together.

Jeremy Corbyn spoke in his acceptance speech about wiping the slate clean and the need to unite the party. What steps can members from all sides take to unite the party?

I think people have got to stop using antagonistic language with each other, and I think they’ve got to stop looking for ways to undermine the democratic will of the membership. That has now been plainly stated, and that’s even with something like 120,000 members not getting their vote because of the freeze. He has increased his majority – we all need to acknowledge that.

Is there anything that Corbyn’s supporters need to do – or need not to do – to contribute towards unity?

I can’t speak for the whole of Jeremy’s supporters, who are numbered in their hundreds and thousands; I know that in my Labour group, we are always bending over backwards to be friendly and to try and be positive in all of our meetings. So I think we just have to keep on being that – continue trying to win people over by and through our responses.

I was knocking doors for Labour last week in support of a local campaign protesting the planned closure of several doctors’ surgeries – I spoke to a voter on a door who said that they love the Labour party but felt unable to vote for us as long as Corbyn is leader. What should we say to voters like that?

The first thing I do is to ask them why they feel that way; most of the time, what I find is that they’ve been reading the press, which has been rabid about Jeremy Corbyn. In all the research that we and others have done, the British public agree overwhelmingly with the policies espoused by Jeremy Corbyn, so we’ve got to get on the doorstep and start talking about policies. I think that sometimes what happens in constituency Labour party groups is that people are saying “go out there and canvass but don’t mention Jeremy”. I think that we need to do the opposite – we need to go out there and talk about Jeremy and his policies all the time.

Now that Corbyn has a stronger mandate and we’ve had these two programmes on Momentum: Channel 4’s Dispatches and BBC’s Panorama, which were explanations of the group, Momentum’s role will be pivotal. How can Momentum contribute towards party unity and get its membership out on the doorstep?

I think we have to turn our base into an activist base that goes out there and starts campaigning – and doesn’t just campaign during elections but campaigns all the time, outside election time. We have to do the long campaign.

The Corbyn campaign put out a video that was subsequently withdrawn – it had been condemned by the pressure group the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which has filed a disciplinary complaint against him. What are your thoughts on the video?

I find their use of accusations of antisemitism reprehensible – I am an anti-racist campaigner and I think they debase the whole debate around anti-racism and I think they should be ashamed of themselves. There is nothing wrong with that video that anyone could look at it and say this is antisemitic. I would suggest that if people have doubt, they should look at the video and judge for themselves whether it is antisemitic.

There’s been a compliance process over the last several months that’s excluded people from the party for comments on social media. Now that Corbyn is in again, how should compliance change?

One of the issues is that we have gotten Jeremy back in as leader, but control of the NEC is still under question. Until the NEC actually accepts the recommendations of Chakrabati in terms of the workings of disciplinary procedures, then I think we’re going to be forever embroiled in these kinds of convoluted and strange disciplinary processes that no other political party would either have or put up with.

There have been rumours that Corbyn’s opponents will split from the party, or mount another leadership challenge. What do you think they’ll do?

I have absolutely no idea – there are so many permutations about how this game could now be played – and I say game because I think that there are some who are Jeremy’s opponents who kind of see it as a power game. I read a tweet somewhere saying that the purpose of this leadership election – which has damaged Labour hugely – has nothing to do with the idea that actually Owen Smith, his challenger, could have won, but is part of the process to actually undermine Jeremy. I think people like that should really think again about why they’re in the Labour party and what it is they’re doing.

Margaret Corvid is a writer, activist and professional dominatrix living in the south west.