Britian’s equality
watchdog, Trevor Philips (pictured) has been condemned by religious leaders and legal
experts after he compared Christians who oppose
aspects of equality legislation with Muslims trying to impose sharia
law on Britain. 

Mr Philips, chairman
of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
(EHRC), said that religious rules should end “at the door of the temple”
and religious organisations should give way
to the “public law” laid down by Parliament, according to the Daily Telegraph.

He said that
respecting the conscience rights of Christians in respect of equality laws was
tantamount to saying “sharia can be applied to different parts of the
country”.

But his comments were
firmly rejected as “inflammatory” and “ridiculous” by legal specialists and
religious leaders.

Lord Carey, a former
Archbishop of Canterbury, called on the authorities to respect the nation’s
heritage as a democracy in which the Church of England is the established
religion. He described the comparison with sharia as “ridiculous” and called on
MPs to find ways of “accommodation” when new laws clash with religious
beliefs.

“I have argued in the
past that there can be only one law to which all should be accountable. But we
are not starting with a blank sheet of paper as far as religion is
concerned.

“We are a democracy
in which Christianity is established in the Church of England and a nation
profoundly influenced by this faith in its Catholic and Anglican heritage. We
need lawmakers to respect this heritage and seek accommodation wherever a
strongly held faith seems to clash with new legislation.”

Legal experts called
on Mr Phillips to clarify his comments about sharia – Islamic law – which many
associate with draconian punishments such as stoning adulterers to
death.

Neil Addison, a
barrister and director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, said: “The EHRC is so
obsessed with equality that it has lost sight of freedom. It would prefer people
not to do good, rather than to do good on their own terms.”

The comments were
“inflammatory”, said Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre.
“These comments are deeply illiberal. They are intolerant,” she said. “Trevor
Phillips fails to understand the nature of faith and what inspires faith and
what makes agencies like Catholic adoption agencies so
selfless.”

The Rt Rev Michael
Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said that Mr Phillips appeared to be
applying a “totalitarian view of society”.

“Trevor Phillips in
the past has argued for respect for Christian conscience,” he said. “I am very
surprised that here he seems to be saying that there should be a totalitarian
kind of view in which a believer’s conscience should not be
respected.”

While the basic
principles of sharia contradict Western public law, the issue for Catholic
adoption agencies was one of “respect for conscience”, he said. “They are two
different issues.”

In recent years,
Christians in the UK have faced a series of legal attacks on their freedom of
religion. For example, Catholic adoption
agencies have been forced to close because
of legislation which required them to refer same-sex couples as prospective
adoptive couples.

A
Christian marriage registrar, Lilian Ladelle, was fired
because she requested to be allowed not to conduct same-sex civil partnerships
as it violated her religious
beliefs.

Mr Philips said that
faith groups providing public services must choose between their religion and
obeying the law when their beliefs conflict with the will of the
state.

Mr Phillips singled
out adoption agencies that fought a long legal battle to avoid being forced to
accept homosexual couples under equality laws.

Last year, following
a High Court case, the Charity Commission ruled against an exemption for
Catholic Care, an adoption agency operating in Leeds.

Speaking at a debate
in London on diverse societies, Mr Phillips backed the new laws, which led to
the closure of all Catholic adoption agencies in England. “You can’t say because
we decide we’re different then we need a different set of laws,” he said.

“To me there’s
nothing different in principle with a Catholic adoption agency, or indeed
Methodist adoption agency, saying the rules in our community are different and
therefore the law shouldn’t apply to us. Why not then say sharia can be applied
to different parts of the country? It doesn’t work.”

He added that
religious groups should be free to follow their own rules within their own
settings but not outside. “Once you start to provide public services that have
to be run under public rules, for example child protection, then it has to go
with public law,” he said.

“Institutions have to
make a decision whether they want to do that or they don’t want to do
that.”