|
CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST
ABSTRACT:
In this article,
Peter Hill discusses the history of the Methodist Church’s exemptions from
human rights legislation and its unfortunate implications for the current
allegations of misogyny inside the Church. He suggests some possible
amendments to human rights legislation to clarify the situation. In 2006 Meg Munn, as the Minister for Equality,
introduced the first Equality Bill into the Commons. It was an important
addition to the human rights legislation that the Blair government had begun
introducing eight years before. For some neutral commentators
the exemptions in the Bill were a step too far. They allowed for religious
organisations to discriminate according to professed faith. Even normally
conservative Roman Catholic bishops insisted that unjust discrimination is
fundamentally wrong - implying that the exemptions had gone too far.
When other
churches, such as the Methodist Church, defended their special status,
critics accused them of wanting to define their requirements for
membership in accordance with an arbitrary whim. The exemptions enjoyed by
religious organisations meant that they could discriminate according to
their own standards and rules – outside the standards of the new law.
To many this
made sense. After all, could someone not born a Jew attend a synagogue
regularly. without converting to Judaism? Church authorities argued that if
a religious organisation welcomed someone into its ranks, then such a
person needed to be a member of the relevant faith. Further, it was
therefore reasonable that, in deciding whether to employ someone, the church
might take into account marital history or general morality. In other words
it would be lawful for a religious organisation to discriminate against
someone on almost any grounds.
Commenting on
this situation in 2007, Professor Maleiha Malik, of Kings
College University in London, a leading legal authority in human rights and
discrimination, wrote :
Simon Sarmiento, the GUARDIAN’s religious
correspondent commented:
“A
lot of people will agree with that sentiment.”
There was a further problem with human rights in 2013, when the Methodist Church successfully argued
in the Supreme Court that ministers in the Church were not actually employed
by the Church. Some considered that the
exemptions had allowed this to happen.
This
decision discriminated against all Methodist ministers by taking from them the last
direct link they had to any tribunal which adhered to the Human Rights Act.
They were left with a simple guideline to the Standing Orders.
The guideline was written by the eminent
Methodist and Judge, Clifford Bellamy in 2002. His
interpretation, adopted by
Conference, stated that the Human Rights Act was
“best practice”.
Such "best practice" was not, however, compulsory. It was mere "guidance".
There were no sanctions put in place should anyone not follow "best
practice". It meant that the exemptions gave power to disciplinary
panel members without responsibility for any mistakes or aberrations
in what they did in the name of the Church.
It led to incidents which Bellamy could never have contemplated.
In 2015, the review by Jane Stacey of sex abuse in the Methodist Church
revealed that some 206 cases of such criminality involving ministers had been judged and decided
by persons - mainly
non-lawyers - who had no duty to adhere to either the Human Rights Act or
the Equality Act. Nor could their decisions be appealed on such grounds.
It meant that
over 400 members of the Church - suspects and accusers - had gone through a
trial process without the benefit of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act - the
right to fair trial process. This was a prime example of what many thought
was the “exemption too far”.
Not always. In
2016, the case of Rev. Peter Timms demonstrated the
importance of Professor Malik’s view that the exemptions in human rights
legislation gives too much power to organised religions to police their
internal members.
There were other
such cases, but the Timms case proved to be a clear example of the
overweening powers of the Church – and proof that the Church authorities
cannot be trusted to be fair.
The government
legislators, indeed the eminent Methodist members who drew up guidelines to
the Standing Orders, could not have contemplated actions such as occurred in
the Timms case.
The main act of
wrongdoing against Timms, the issuance of a false confession, was a prime
example of the evil that the exemptions allow. Furthermore, it occurred
at the very beginning of the case – polluting the entire dispute that
came after it.
The case ended
several years later with Peter Timms being removed from the ministry because
he refused to sign the offensive document.
In disputes in
any secular organisation this would have constituted a clear breach of
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.
This hapless
minister was sent a statement, which, if he had signed it, would have
constituted an admission to having breached an important standing order of
the Church. This was followed up by a further five coercive demands
that he sign it. He was threatened with dire consequences if he did not
admit his guilt to the unspecified accusation. Coercion is a
crime against human dignity and is actionable in law.
Making matters
even worse, some of the coercive demands sent to him were actually modified
by captious summary of the original document. These summaries suggested that
the confession document referred to conduct in the future. In fact
the original document which he was being coerced into signing referred to
alleged conduct in the past.
The admission of
guilt that was being demanded would have destroyed the thrust of the three
complaints that Timms had lodged with Church House.
This completely
unreasonable behaviour was committed on behalf of the Church by persons with
little or no legal training in human rights legislation. No one has been
sanctioned in any way. The case demonstrates just how far
the Church is protected by the exemptions with regard to human rights.
The Timms case is a prime
example of Church executives wielding power without responsibility.
Even just before
Conference decided to eject Timms from the ministry, he was again
coerced into accepting the document.
He was told that
if he shut up and accepted the false confession, Conference would not take
such dire action against him.
This was the
final act of coercion – an action which is totally contrary to the Human
Rights Act, which, in its official guidelines, the Methodist Church
claims is “best
practice”.
Rev Timms
bravely dug his heels in throughout. He stood by what he considered to be
the right way to run a judicial process. He defended the Church that he had
joined many decades ago: he did not accept the current corrupt model.
His friends
considered that the power granted to the Church by the exemptions to human
rights legislation was unjust – even by the Church’s own standards. Rev
Timms’ dignity as a human being was being completely ignored by the Church.
His reputation was besmirched.
And so, in 2023,
we come to the current cases of Rev Graham Thompson
and his assistant Mr. Anthony Boateng.
Here we have the potential of two eminent Methodists being judged by the
same ramshackle disciplinary system that so evilly dealt with Peter Timms.
Unlike Timms, these two men are not lowly ministers.
Graham Thompson is a former President of the
Methodist Church. He has been an important member of the Church for some
three decades.
Anthony Boateng has a fine reputation because of his passion
for social action, church unity, spiritual revival and creative ways of worship.
Are these men to be treated with the abandonment of dignity,
and a breach of Bellamy’s guidelines, as Peter Timms was?
Although these
cases are shrouded in the secrecy granted to religious bodies by the
exemptions, The “Church Times” has stated that Mr. Boateng is being
investigated about his behaviour. He denies any wrongdoing. Rev Thompson is
facing a separate investigation, supposedly related to his management and
the handling of allegations made within the Church.
The very fact
that their names have been published is sufficient to affect them for the
rest of their lives. Mud sticks.
Hayley Preston suffered from mud that was thrown at her
anonymously in Truro - it led to five years of dispute. She left the Church.
Joanne Archer-Siddall suffered similar abuse in South
Yorkshire.
She left the Church
The mud thrown at Rev Peter Timms included several
criminal accusations which had no basis in fact at all. They were swiftly
dropped when challenged. He continues to fight to stay in the Church.
These
latest investigations into Rev Thompson and Mr Boateng appear to stem from Meg
Munn’s secret report to Conference about
misogyny in the Church. If this is so, then the women involved may expect
a very rough ride.
After all, that is what both Hayley Preston and Joanne
Archer-Siddall
suffered when they dared to question the power of the Church. Both of these
hard-working ministers ultimately left the Church because of the outrageous
treatment they received.
The central point of Meg Munn’s 2023 report is
that misogyny is rampant within the Methodist Church. According to a
journalist on the “Christian Times” who has read the report,
the Methodist Church is not "seen as a
safe place" by many women.
It follows that, since the disciplinary system is largely run by men, any
women involved in proceedings may again find themselves victims of misogyny
and unfair trial procedure.
Ultimately, however, like the two eminent men currently being investigated,
the women making the complaints will be at the mercy of a vicious and
totally incompetent disciplinary system. It is a system which is geared to
preserving the reputations of those in power, rather than anything else.
It seems that neither side in this dispute will be able to rely on any
rights granted to normal citizens by the government’s human rights
legislation.
Jonathan Hustler’s response to all this is to
ask for
our prayers for everyone in these difficult situations at this time. He adds
that some may feel hurt by the actions or inactions on the part of the
Church. This smells of hypocrisy. The action, or inaction, he refers to,
is actually down to Jonathan Hustler himself. He has been Secretary to
Conference throughout the period when these scandalous events are said to
have taken place.
However, instead of blaming himself in any way, Jonathan
Hustler asks for our prayers. He further adds that we should pray for
those (perhaps such as the writers of this website) who have raised
concerns about adherence to human rights legislation inside the Church.
He should reflect on how long ago such concerns about the
disciplinary system were first raised with him, for they are the heart of
the present problem.
In the Timms case he was told some seven years ago that fair
trial process was not being followed. Timms was actually told by a senior
member of the Church that the Bellamy guideline (that the Human Rights Act
is “best practice”) was out of date! Did Jonathan Hustler
sanction this? When was that decision passed by Conference?
Jonathan Hustler was also informed two years ago
of the
outrageous situation when the leader of the disciplinary panel, which found
against Timms, failed to recuse himself even though one the parties
involved in the dispute was a close colleague of his.
How many times does Jonathan Hustler need to be told of the
canker inside the Methodist Church? It is an open secret that connexional
panel members can run riot inside the secret system – covered, as they are,
by government exemptions.
Jonathan Hustler has totally given in to the mandarins who
actually run the Methodist Church. And yet he witnessed at first hand
his predecessor’s attempts (notably in the 2015 publication “Positive Working
Together” ) to correct the imbalance that had sprung up within the Church
since the exemptions were introduced.
Jonathan Hustler stood by as Gareth Powell martyred himself
in this cause – and he did nothing to help. Now he asks for our prayers.
We now see the sorry situation in which the two men currently
under scrutiny find themselves. They actually presided over the ill-founded
disciplinary procedures that are now being used to investigate them.
They are already
getting the unfair treatment that was shown up in the Timms case. Apparently, the
cases that have caused them to be investigated concern unknown
charges made by unknown persons against these two eminent members of
the Methodist Church.
If the
allegation against him is discrimination, as seems possible, given the
proximity of the investigation to the Meg Munn review (detailed elsewhere
on this website), then his best policy would certainly be to somehow get
the investigation and subsequent judgement out of the Church – and
before the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
He may be able
to do this by arguing that he, and his superior, Rev Thomson, are being
discriminated against by the Methodist Church. He will need to attack the
“fairness” of the exemptions. He should call Professor Malik at King’s
College, as a witness to this.
One argument
about inherent unfairness might be based on the fact that the names of the
two men have been released by the Methodist Church,
while their accusers enjoy anonymity.
Of course, the
Church’s expensive lawyers will argue that such is the situation in civil
courts with accusations of rape. However, that, of course, only applies to
cases in our secular courts. The power given to the Church by the
exemptions means that the Church should abide by its own Standing Orders.
After all, do not the Standing Orders demand “openness” as a general and
over-riding principle?
The sad truth is that the ability to publish names, or not to
publish them, allows the Church to have "leverage" over those in the
disciplinary and complaints system - and
leverage is one of
Church House's favourite tactics.
It seems clear
that to name the accused, but not the accuser (as happened of course in the
Timms case) is contrary to the Church’s Standing Orders.
Discrimination
cases are frequently what lawyers term “he said - she said” cases. The
outcome of such often depends upon the professionalism of the judge in the
case - because such cases are conducted within the judicial system of
“the balance of probabilities.”
This could form
the basis of a charge of inherent unfairness in the Methodist Church’s
Complaints and Disciplinary procedures – protected, as they are, by the
exemptions granted by the government..
The Methodist
Church insists that disciplinary cases must been judged by the
system of the balance of probabilities. But is the Church capable of
carrying out this ruling?
In the Peter
Timms case, the leader of the Connexional complaints panel claimed to be using the
system of the balance of probabilities. However, he clearly did not have the
foggiest idea of how that judicial system works. He seemed to think that his own
biased assessment - formed as it was in anger because of mistakes he had
already made during the investigation - was sufficient.
The outcome
demonstrated that the panel leader had exercised power without responsibility.
The exemptions allow the Church to do exactly that - but this can
hardly have been the government's intention when the Human Rights Act was
introduced.
Although this powerful leader of the connexional panel was,
by profession, a magistrate, he did not appear to realise that the system of
the balance of probabilities required him to assess the probity of all
the evidence - from both sides of the argument - before reaching
a balance.
The way in which
he acted is not how the system of the balance of probabilities is supposed
to work. It is an amateur’s interpretation of the judicial
system. Anthony
Boateng would be well-advised to stay well away from it - for the
Methodist Church’s interpretation of this judicial system is not fit for purpose.
If Anthony
Boateng is expecting to rely upon the ramshackle system of justice within
the Methodist Church he may soon join the ranks of those who wish that the
horizontal reach of the Human Rights Act might cover the Church’s
Complaints and Disciplinary procedures.
This question - of
how far the new legislation should reach into the private areas of church matters
- was left largely unexplored when the Human Rights Bill was debated. One
supposed reason for this was that the matter was currently being hotly
debated in Europe – where there is a wider range of religious organisations
than in Britain. The UK may have wished to see what happened in Europe
before making a decision.
Nevertheless,
the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, included among the functions that he
anticipated would be regarded as “private” under the HRA and thus exempt:
“the regulation
of divine worship, the administration of the sacrament, admission to church
membership or to the priesthood and decisions of parochial church councils
about the running of the parish church”.
Significantly,
Jack Straw did not include “Complaints and Disciplinary
procedures” as being potentially “private” and thus exempt from the HRA. It may be that it was his
understanding, or intention, that such would not be exempt from
adherence to the HRA. Judge Clifford Bellamy's subsequent guideline on
adherence to the HRA appears to support this view.
This question has never been settled: it should now
be addressed.
The argument
that such cases, as Meg Munn has raised, should be handled by the Equality
Board is fundamentally strong. It can be easily argued that both the
supposed malefactors - and the unknown accusers and victims in the present
scandals - deserve a better system of justice than the Methodist Church can
provide. Discrimination is a serious matter and judgement on it cannot be
left to good-hearted amateurs, for the reputation and careers of all those
involved is at stake.
As for the fate
of the current alleged victims of discrimination, it seems that the
writing is on the wall. Someone, believing (with good reason) that this
affair would be “hushed up” as usual, deliberately leaked the Meg Munn report to the
“Times” - in the spirit of openness and to ensure that we all knew about it. The Methodist Church immediately drew a large veil of secrecy over the
affair.
The intention is
clearly to settle the affair inside the Church. The objective is to
uphold the reputation of the Church. The Methodist Church’s prime
consideration is its reputation – and it is ready to do whatever it can to
preserve that reputation.
Lies may be told
to the public, or the full truth avoided, as a consequence.
Consider the
history of such affairs. That is what happened in 2015 with the sex abuse
cases. No names were mentioned. The suspicion, even today, is that some
ministers who were actually guilty were judged by their friends and remain
in place. This is what appears to have happened in the
infamous Hailsham case. A woman was driven to
near distraction by the way in which that case was handled.
Church elders
who covered up criminal actions of sex abuse in 2015 are no doubt prepared to cover up
criminal actions now. The signs are already there.
In secular life,
employers may face a £5,000 fine for each case of such discrimination – but
of course the Methodist Church is exempt from such procedures. Further, of
course, ministers such as Thompson and Boateng are not technically “employees” so they have no human rights
whatsoever inside the Church.
If the victims
of discrimination, in the guise of misogyny, seek true justice, they should
ask organisations such as JUSTICE or
LIBERTY to find pro-bono lawyers who might best
advise them. Further - Meg Munn will know of feminist organisations that
will help.
Unless this
issue of discrimination is debated outside the confines of Church House,
the curse of misogyny is likely to continue inside the Methodist Church –
and women will continue to suffer.
Such may apply
to other religious organisations.
Each can interpret the exemptions to
their own liking. Experts on the subject of the exemptions
to human rights legislation point to the inequality in the fact that one
church might have different standards, principles and procedures to another
Church. Differences
in interpretation would seem to be inevitable. Justice in one church may not
be justice in another.
Such anomalies
need to be cleared up if we are all to have equal treatment from such church
courts or disciplinary panels and tribunals.
Those who framed
the Human Rights Act anticipated that there might be such anomalies. They
inserted a safeguard into the Bill, in case such injustices appeared when
the Act met the reality of public life.
Section 4 of the Human Rights Act is about reviewing
legislation.
Section 3 of the Act requires anyone interpreting our laws
to do so in a way that is compatible with human rights – whether they are a
court, tribunal or public authority.
The Methodist Church states that the "best practice" in its
Complaints and Disciplinary procedures is the European Convention - and thus
the Human Rights Act. Such "best practice" is, in fact, an interpretation of
the Human Rights Act - and, according to Section 3 of the Act, it should be
made in a manner that is compatible with human rights
legislation.
One cannot
dismiss the possibility that the domestic courts might now find that the
composition and actions of tribunals in the Methodist Church is not in accordance with
Article 6(1) of the Human Rights Act - and issue a declaration of
incompatibility under sections 3 & 4 of the Act.
It could be argued that the Methodist Church interprets UK
human rights legislation in a manner that is incompatible with human rights.
The core of this
argument would be that the exemptions granted in the legislation, as
applied by the Church, are incompatible with a Convention right.
The legal
mechanism to correct this is already in place. The wording of the exemptions
which favour religious bodies may need to be changed in order to ensure that the Methodist Complaints and
Disciplinary Procedures adhere to the Human Rights Act. This would appear to
be in accordance with the Home Secretary’s consideration in 1998 of the
relevant clauses of the Act.
The participants
in this current controversy should bear this in mind.
--00-- If you are shocked by the content of this article,
please email Rev Jonathan Hustler at: for
a contrary view.
|
