A proposed EU equality directive may threaten liberty of conscience and freedom of speech, a leading advocate for 
religious freedom has warned.
In testimony to the Social Affairs Committee of the Dutch Parliament, David Fieldsend of CARE for Europe, warned that the proposed EU Equal Treatment Directive may compromise religious liberties in the name of anti-discrimination as currently drafted.
Mr Fieldsend was invited to give testimony ahead of the Dutch government deciding what position it should take vis-à-vis the directive in the Council of Ministers.
He warned that in similar legislation in other European countries, the definition of harassment had been “entirely subjective”, such that certain speech was deemed to be offensive regardless of whether there was any intention to cause offence.
Such legislation, he added, imposed interpretations of tolerance which effectively required “agreement with the point of view of the one to be tolerated, rather than simply accepting their right to express their opinion”. and required “that both public and private providers of goods and services be willing to promote activities their religion teaches to be immoral are examples of this”.
Mr Fieldsend referred to a number of cases where such legistlation had been used to restrict religious freedom.
He mentioned the case of a British couple prosecuted for arguing with a Muslim couple about religion, and the case of a Swedish pastor, Ake Green, who was convicted of a hate crime for preaching the sinfulness of homosexuality although in the end he was not imprisoned.
He added that, although the proposed directive allowed for organisations with a religious ethos to ensure those working for them respected that ethos in teaching, it made “no similar provision for service providers with a religious foundation”.
He said: “Whether it be a religious publishing house, a retreat centre for Christian conferences or an elder care centre provided for church members, the founding religious ethos will be diluted, if not lost altogether if the management are not able to say no when there is a request to make use of their services from someone who does not subscribe to either the beliefs or moral code of the organisation concerned.”
Church adoption agencies had been on the front line as the main Catholic adoption agencies had been forced to close because “they could only stay in business if they were willing to place children for adoption with gay couples,” Mr Fieldsend said.
Equality legislation also had negative effects on public servants who conscientiously object to certain laws, he said.
The recent legalisation of civil partnership ceremonies and the adoption of children by same sex couples in the UK, had led to “a number of Christian professionals of long standing losing their jobs, Mr Fieldsend said.
He referred to the Lilian Ladele case. Ms Ladele, a registrar of civil marriages asked to be excused from undertaking ceremonies for same sex couples (there being plenty of other registrars in the team who were willing to do this) because of her religion.
She was not only told she had to do all ceremonies or none at all but had action taken against her for harassment.
In another similar case, a Christian magistrate responsible for family law cases who asked to be excused form making rulings on the very small number of applications from same sex couples for adoption was dismissed.
And it was not only in public office who are affected, he added.
In Canada, a Christian printer was prosecuted for refusing to print material for a gay rights advocacy organisation and in a US state a Christian photographer who declined to cover a same sex ceremony (even though it was not legally recognised) was taken to court.
Mr Fieldsend urged Dutch members of the Council of Ministers not to support the proposed directive.