A corporate Wanker this week – the Trafford Housing Trust.
One of the Trust's employees, a devout Christian, Adrian Smith was disturbed to read a report that gay marriages may be permitted in church. So he went onto his Facebook page and posted four words summarising his own position. ‘An equality too far,’ he wrote.
But those four words, even though they were seen by only a few dozen friends and work colleagues, triggered a major battle over freedom of speech which finally ended this week.
After a work colleague complained that his comment was offensive (despite having not seen the post), Mr Smith, a family man and lifelong Labour voter, was disciplined, had his job downgraded and his salary cut by £14,000. But after a bitter and protracted court fight to overturn the decision, the married father-of-two has won a landmark victory.
His triumph comes in the wake of a series of recent claims by Christians that they have been discriminated against for expressing their beliefs. For example, there was the bed and breakfast owner who lost her battle to refuse a gay couple a double room and who was punished for her religious beliefs. If she'd been a Muslim or a Jew it wouldn't have happened.
In Mr Smith’s case, his employers claimed he broke their code of conduct by expressing religious or political views which might upset co-workers. But Mr Justice Briggs, in London’s High Court, yesterday ruled that the housing trust did not have a right to demote Mr Smith as his Facebook postings did not amount to misconduct.
He said the comment about gays marrying in church was not — viewed objectively — judgemental, disrespectful or liable to cause upset or offence, and was expressed in moderate language. As for the content, it was a widely held view frequently heard on radio and television, or read in the newspapers.
‘It is important that a line is drawn in the sand for Christians who are being persecuted for their beliefs”, Mr.Smith said afterwrds. ‘The truth is that it is our accusers who are the intolerant ones because they refuse to accept that there is room for more than one shade of opinion.’
But despite his court triumph, Mr Smith is close to financial ruin. His savings are exhausted. Also, his career is in tatters after 18 years at Trafford Council and then the Trafford Housing Trust, which manages 9,000 homes in the Sale area of Greater Manchester. Even though the court ruled in his favour, the Trust refuses to reinstate him to his former managerial post or restore the £14,000 pay cut.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Briggs said: ‘Mr Smith was taken to task for doing nothing wrong, suspended and subjected to a disciplinary procedure which wrongly found him guilty of gross misconduct, and then demoted to a non-managerial post with an eventual 40 per cent reduction in salary. The breach of contract which the trust thereby committed was serious and repudiatory.’
But because of complicated rules covering contract law, the judge was only able to offer Mr Smith £98 in damages. A clearly frustrated Mr Justice Briggs went on to say: ‘A conclusion that his damages are limited to less than £100 leaves the uncomfortable feeling that justice has not been done to him. I must admit to real disquiet about the financial outcome of this case.’
This sorry saga started 19 months ago when Mr Smith posted a link on his Facebook page to an article about gay marriage on the BBC website. Under the headline ‘Gay church marriages get go-ahead’, he posted the words: ‘An equality too far.’ Later that day, a lesbian colleague with whom he was friends on Facebook, Julia Stavordale, 56, responded: ‘Does that mean you don’t approve?’ A day later, Mr Smith replied on Facebook: ‘No, not really. I don’t understand why people who have no faith and don’t believe in Christ would want to get hitched in church. The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.’
Later that week another colleague, Stephen Lynch (also gay), who was not a ‘Facebook friend’ of Mr Smith, made a formal complaint to their trust bosses about the post, despite not having seen it.
Mr Smith was duly suspended on full pay from his £35,000-a-year post while an investigation began. Miss Stavordale backed the complaint, saying the trust should ‘throw the book at him’ and that he was ‘blatantly homophobic’.
The following month, Mr Smith was told he was guilty of ‘inappropriate remarks’ and of gross misconduct for a breach of trust disciplinary policies. Because he had stated on his Facebook profile that he worked as a housing trust manager — he did not identify which trust — his comments could be construed as representing the trust’s official policy, it was argued. He was told he faced dismissal, but because of his eight years’ ‘loyal service’ he was instead demoted to ‘money support adviser’ on just £21,396 a year. That reduction was to be phased in over 12 months but, although Mr Smith’s appeal was rejected, that period was doubled to 24 months.
Not surprisingly, he went to court claiming breach of contract and loss of earnings, arguing that he had been ‘entrapped’ by colleagues who had enticed him to elaborate on his original, harmless four-word comment about gay marriage in church. Mr Smith felt the targeting of his Facebook comments was a huge over-reaction. Indeed, he used the social networking site for many mundane comments such as his liking for wholemeal toast and apricot jam. At an earlier hearing, the judge asked if this reference to toast and jam could be taken to represent trust policy.
Indeed, Mr Smith also wondered if his public support for Tottenham Hotspur could have been liable for disciplinary proceedings because it might offend Manchester United fans. Looking back at his ordeal, Mr Smith said: ‘I phrased my words on Facebook very carefully because I never want to give offence. No one has ever been able to suggest that I am homophobic either to colleagues or our tenants. I have always been a conscientious worker. But by accusing me of gross misconduct, the trust was telling the world I’m a bigot. It was a shocking interpretation of my position. I am not against homosexuals. I have worked alongside gay men and women for many years. I have employed gay people. Their sexuality is of no consequence to me. All that matters is can they do their job, gay or straight.’
Ironically, his view on churches not being compelled to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies is identical to the one articulated by the Prime Minister, the Lib Dems (who first proposed gay marriage), the Synod of the Church of England and every major faith including the Muslims and Hindus. Stonewall, the equal rights organisation, also takes the same position.
Fortunately The GOS has no job, so he can't face the sack for saying that he also opposes the idea of gay marriage, not just in church, but anywhere. This is not on religious grounds, but on the grounds that the idea is a contradiction in terms. Marriage has always been the union – or a contract, if you like – between a man and a woman who will live together and will, when they choose, seek to have children. Others are welcome to agree any contract they like between themselves - they can even get the vicar to bless it if they like - but unless it includes the possibility of procreation it ain't a marriage and can't be called one.
There. Now sack us, if you can.
Meanwhile, Trafford Housing Trust, for being unreasonable, illogical, vindictive and for not understanding plain English, you are our Wankers of the Week, and we hope you find that offensive because it was meant to be.
Bastards.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2012 The GOS