British Christians have won one out of four court cases appealed to the European Court of Human Rights after losing cases in the British court System.

Nadia Eweida, a British Airways check-in worker, won 2,000 Euro in compensation after she was ordered to cover up a cross necklace. Three other applicants lost their cases.

British PM David Cameron tweeted: “Delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld – ppl shouldn’t suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs.”

Here is the official ECHR summary of the cases:

“All four applicants are practising Christians. Ms Eweida, a British Airways employee, and Ms Chaplin, a geriatrics nurse, complained that their employers placed restrictions on their visibly wearing Christian crosses around their necks while at work. Ms Ladele, a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and Mr McFarlane, a Relate counsellor complained about their dismissal for refusing to carry out certain of their duties which they considered would condone homosexuality.

The Court did not consider that the lack of explicit protection in UK law to regulate the wearing of religious clothing and symbols in the workplace in itself meant that the right to manifest religion was breached, since the issues could be and were considered by the domestic courts in the context of discrimination claims brought by the applicants.

In Ms Eweida’s case, the Court held that on one side of the scales was Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religious belief. On the other side of the scales was the employer’s wish to project a certain corporate image. While this aim was undoubtedly legitimate, the domestic courts accorded it too much weight.

As regards Ms Chaplin, the importance for her to be allowed to bear witness to her Christian faith by wearing her cross visibly at work weighed heavily in the balance. However, the reason for asking her to remove the cross, namely the protection of health and safety on a hospital ward, was inherently more important than that which applied in respect of Ms Eweida and the hospital managers were well placed to make decisions about clinical safety.

In the cases of Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane, it could not be said that national courts had failed to strike a fair balance when they upheld the employers’ decisions to bring disciplinary proceedings. In each case the employer was pursuing a policy of nondiscrimination against service-users, and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation was also protected under the Convention.”

Theos, a Christian think-tank linked to the British and Foreign bible Society believes that the court , despite the positive result for Eweida, is still interpreting religious freedom too narrowly.

“Disputes around freedom of religious belief and manifestation are an inevitable part of living in a free and diverse society,” Theos Director Elizabeth Oldfield, said . “However, it seems as if the courts are erring on the side of limiting rather than accommodating religious freedom.

“One does not have to agree with the beliefs of the applicants to support their cases. It should not be beyond the wit of an employer to work with strongly-held religious commitments, rather than dismiss them. However, what we are increasingly seeing is an unwillingness to accommodate them reasonably.

“These individual cases are complex, but the judgements matter because they will influence a larger conversation about the place of Christianity in the UK. Religious freedom has historically been foundational in Britain, going back in some ways more than 300 years. It the basis on which other freedoms, such as speech and conscience, were slowly built. Although it is often uncomfortable, it is a well-spring for democratic health. The more we chip away at the right to live and act according to our deepest commitments, the more we chip away at the foundation of all our freedoms.”

The UK’s Evangelical Alliance suggests that the courts have failed to understand Christianity.

Dr Dave Landrum, director of advocacy for the Evangelical Alliance, said: “The court’s recognition of Christian belief in everyday life is welcome, but in only finding in favour of Nadia Eweida, it has shown a hierarchy of rights now exists in UK law.

“While for some the cross is a vital part of their worship, at the heart of Christianity is not about a set of rules, but a God that brings people into a new life of freedom. This new life is then lived out 24-7, and cannot ever be restricted to just our private lives.

“If UK courts are going to protect religious freedom more fully in the future they need to better understand the nature of Christian belief. Developing better religious literacy needs to become a priority.

“The failure of the court to protect the religious freedom of Lillian Ladele in living out her faith in a way consistent with historic Christian belief shows the limitations of this judgement. We need solutions that will allow for the reasonable accommodation of the expressions of religious belief in all its diverse forms.

“If we want to live in a society that is diverse and can live with its deepest differences there needs to be a fuller protection for religious beliefs, convictions and actions.

“We hope that in the light of today’s decision, employers, public bodies, and courts will seek to understand religious belief better and build relationships with faith groups to help achieve this. The alternative of a society that is in perpetual legal conflict with itself is both undesirable and unsustainable.”

The Europrean Court judgement widens the scope of religious freedom protection, at least a little. UK barrister Neil Addison’s “Religion Law Blog”  puts it this way:
“In the Eweida and Chaplin cases the UK courts had based their decisions against the Claimants in part on the basis that because the wearing of a Cross was not compulsory in Christianity its wearing was not a “manifestation” of religion for the purposes of Article 9.1 and so Courts did not have to consider whether any restrictions were “necessary in a democratic society” as required by 9.2.  The ECtHR clearly rejected this approach

“Para 82.  In particular, there is no requirement on the applicant to establish that he or she acted in fulfilment of a duty mandated by the religion in question

“89.  the Court considers that Ms Eweida’s behaviour was a manifestation of her religious belief, in the form of worship, practice and observance, and as such attracted the protection of Article 9.

“97. the Court considers that [Ms Chaplin’s] determination to wear the cross and chain at work was a manifestation of her religious belief and that the refusal by the health authority to allow her to remain in the nursing post while wearing the cross was an interference with her freedom to manifest her religion.”