The university argued that they were right to sanction Felix and bar him from his chosen profession in spite of the fact that Felix had lawfully expressed his Christian views as a practicing Christian, outside of his professional studies, in a context in which he was not identified as a social work student, and despite this expression having no impact on his work and professional abilities.

Christian Concern : Oct 31, 2017 : Lifesitenews.com

airlift(United Kingdom)—[Christian Concern via LifeSiteNews] A Christian student who was expelled from (a) university after posting on Facebook in support of Biblical teaching on marriage and sexual ethics has lost his case in a judicial review of the university’s decision. (Photo: Felix Ngole/Facebook/via LifeSiteNews.com)

Felix Ngole was studying for an MA in Social Work at Sheffield University. In 2015 he made comments using his personal Facebook account on the story of the American registrar Kim Davis who was imprisoned after conscientiously refusing to register same-sex marriages. Felix expressed his Christian beliefs on the issue and argued that: “same sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not. It is God’s words and man’s sentiments would not change His words”. He was asked where in the Bible it says that same-sex marriage is wrong, and he quoted various passages to demonstrate this.

Nearly two months later, Felix received an email from a university official informing him that his Facebook comments were being investigated. He was later interviewed by an investigatory team, and subsequently removed from his course by a panel chaired by Professor Marsh, an LGBT rights campaigner.

Felix, supported by the Christian Legal Center, sought to challenge the university’s decision in a judicial review which was heard in the High Court over two days. The court ruled that the university acted lawfully in removing Felix from his course.

‘May have caused offence’
The court heard that the university “investigatory team accepted that Felix was fully entitled to his religious beliefs, and had acted with honesty and integrity.” The university held that it was not Felix’s views that were at issue, but his public posting of these views. They held that this expression of his views “may have caused offence to some individuals.”

The university argued that they were right to sanction Felix and bar him from his chosen profession in spite of the fact that Felix had lawfully expressed his Christian views as a practicing Christian, outside of his professional studies, in a context in which he was not identified as a social work student, and despite this expression having no impact on his work and professional abilities.

‘Freedom of speech impaired’
The university and the court agreed that Felix’s freedom of speech had been impaired. The judge accepted that his posts “were undoubtedly intended by him to convey a religious perspective.” Nevertheless, the court ruled that “Felix had no religious imperative to comment on an American news website about Kim Davis.”

The judgment stated: “Freedom of expression is an important right. Exercising that right to express the content of deeply held religious views deserves respect in a democratic and plural society, nowhere more so than in a university. Freedom of religious discourse is a public good of great importance and seriousness.”

‘No discrimination’
The university agreed that there had been no cause for concern or evidence of Felix acting in a discriminatory fashion, whether on placement or otherwise. The university’s decision was not based on speculation that Felix would discriminate in the future either. No discrimination has actually occurred, or is expected to occur in this case.

‘Severe sanction’
The judge accepted that the university’s sanction of Felix “was indeed severe.” The judgment also stated: “Nor is it to doubt that there may well be good grounds to fear more generally for the place of religious discourse, and the understanding of and respect for religious adherents, in the context of a liberal and secular consensus within universities or elsewhere.”

The judgment further stated: “If a chain of events, starting with a student posting Bible verses on a news website and ending with him being removed from his course, is one for which the law does not provide him with a remedy, it is important to test hard why not.”

‘Perceived risk’
What in the end was judged to have justified the university’s actions was a perceived risk of damage…

Continue reading here.

Source: www.BreakingChristianNews.com

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This