for the exemption that the wide interpretation which we favour should be given to it. It is consistent with the reasoning which allowed such an objection in the first place that it should extend to any involvement in the process of treatment, the object of which is to terminate a pregnancy.” (emphasis supplied) The employers appeal to this Court. Two distractions There was some discussion, at an earlier stage in these proceedings, of the relevance of the rights under article 9 of the European petitioners’ Convention on Human Rights. This protects the to freedom of “right thought, conscience and the manifest religion,” including freedom “to his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and It observance”. is our duty, under section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, to read and give effect to legislation, whenever it was passed, in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, so far as it is possible to do so. However, the article 9 right is a qualified right, which may be subject to as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic “such limitations society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of for religious reasons to perform some of the duties others”. Refusing of a job is likely (following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in (2013) 57 EHRR 213) to be Eweida v United Kingdom held to be a manifestation of a religious belief. There would remain
for the exemption that the wide interpretation which we favour should be given to it. It is consistent with the reasoning which allowed such an objection in the first place that it should extend to any involvement in the process of treatment, the object of which is to terminate a pregnancy.” (emphasis supplied) The employers appeal to this Court. Two distractions There was some discussion, at an earlier stage in these proceedings, of the relevance of the petitioners’ rights under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This protects the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” including the freedom “to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance”. It is our duty, under section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, to read and give effect to legislation, whenever it was passed, in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, so far as it is possible to do so. However, the article 9 right is a qualified right, which may be subject to “such limitations as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. Refusing for religious reasons to perform some of the duties of a job is likely (following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 213) to be held to be a manifestation of a religious belief. There would remain
greater-glasgow-health-board-appellant-v-doogan-and-another-respondents.docx