Government Slammed For Removing Protections For Transgender Children

After the decision of the Department of Education (DfE) to remove the protection from discrimination on the basis of gender identity from its guidelines on teaching the national curriculum, LGBT campaigners gave utterance to their disagreement.

Section 4.2 of the previous issue of the DfE’s Draft National Curriculum document, published in February 2013, said: “Teachers should take account of their duties under equal opportunities legislation that covers disability, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, gender identity, and religion or belief.”

The last time the document was issued things changed and it referred only to “disability, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation” without mentioning anything about gender and gender identity.May be you will need some Health and Safety Policies for your business.

In the words of a spokesperson for the DfE told Gay Star News teachers knew what pupils wanted and should be able to respond to their needs.

One of the people who said they were against the changes was Zoe Kirk-Robinson, from Conservative LGBT group LBGTory. She said in her opinion the term “sex” did not include gender identity.

She added that the vulnerable transgender children would not feel protected anymore.

In fact they need to be protected better otherwise they would continue experience difficulties at school.

Educational academic Natacha Kennedy said: “I have encountered systematic transphobia on the part of many schools, and consequently there appears to be two default positions for trans children in most schools: fearfully hiding in the closet, and consequently underperforming academically, or out as trans and bullied out of school.”

In her view UK educational system should not erasure trans people from the National Curriculum.

Unfair Dismissal Exemption for Employees Fired for Political Beliefs

After a ruling on the case of BNP member who lost his job because of his political beliefs, in similar cases such people will be exempt from unfair discharge rules requiring a minimum length of service.

Due to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the sacking of the bus driver Arthur Redfearn was a breach of human rights.

Usually it is assumed that people claiming for unfair dismissal in the UK should have worked for at least two years at the position and place where they were later ousted from.

As Mr. Redfearn found out that the Court was in fact critical of this restriction he took the decision to not to lodge a complaint about unfair dismissal but about race discrimination.

Six months after Redfearn was dismissed into the job he was proposed to represent the BNP in the Bradford Council.

The explanation of the transport operator Serco was that they took that action because of fear of reprisals.

The employment tribunal dismissed his original claim basing itself on the fact that his position can make passengers anxious and spark attacks on vehicles by those opposed to the BNP’s views.

After some time Mr. Redfearn appealed successfully but Serco again succeeded with a counter-appeal.

This made Mr. Redfearn take his case to the ECHR which was the last step he had to take in order to triumph.

In the words of the business minister Viscount Younger of Leckie the requirement of minimum length of service regulation for people who wanted to claim unfair dismissal because of their political beliefs would be enshrined in law by an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which will come into force right after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Viscount Younger told Parliament in a statement: “This amendment exempts claimants who allege that their dismissal was on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation from this two-year qualifying period.”

At The Legal Stop we would advise – stop worrying about your employees` political views or religious beliefs, get all the necessary employment documents for £30.00 only, instead!

An Employee Wins Discrimination Case In European Court

An employee of British Airways won a case in the European Court of Human Rights claiming she felt discriminated because of the fact she was not allowed to wear a cross around her neck.

On the other hand, the result of three other similar cases turned to be unsuccessful.

In September 2006 Nadia Eweida was sent back home just because she said she would not remove the cross around her neck because this presented her faith. The airline changed their policy toward uniforms in next February and until then she did not go to work. According to her during the period she was off work she had lost around £3,500.

In the words of Ms Eweida members of other religions were allowed to wear religious symbols so she just wanted to have the same rights and wear her cross. She has spent years inUKand European courts until she managed to persuade people this was a violation of her human rights. In the end she felt “jubilant” on the decision the court made.

David Cameron wrote on twitter that “ppl [sic] shouldn’t suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs.”

The other three similar cases brought to court were rejected.

Being a nurse Shirley Chaplin was told she had to remove her cross because of health and safety purposes.  Ms Ladale lost her job because she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies and Mr. McFarlane because he was unwilling to offer sex therapy to couples with homosexual tastes.

Mr. McFarlane said he would not stop trying to win the case: “I don’t seek to make judgements about peoples’ rights to live the way they do,” said McFarlane, “but it creates a conflict for me…I would seek some reasonable accommodation of that view.”

Protect your business by downloading the Equal Opportunities Policy Template by The Legal Stop