There is an interesting case out of England this month where a chaplain has sued after he was fired and reported as a threat to young students for questioning LGBTQ activists. What is most alarming is the initial response of the courts in dismissing his free speech rights and effectively ratifying the cancel campaign against Rev. Dr. Bernard Randall, an ordained Church of England minister, after he spoke out against LGBTQ identity policies.
Trent College is affiliated with the Church of England. Rev. Randall sued Trent College in Derbyshire, England, for discrimination, harassment, victimization and unfair dismissal after he was fired after five years as chaplain at Trent College, according to Fox News Digital. The cause of his termination was a 2019 sermon in which he told students they should be able to reach their own conclusions about the claims of LGBTQ identity politics.
The Church has previously enlisted Elly Barnes, CEO and founder of the LGBTQ education charity Educate and Celebrate, to train school staff. Barnes reportedly urged staff to chant “smash heteronormativity” during a training session.
In his sermon to young students ranging in age from 11 to 17 years old, Randall explained the Church of England’s traditional teachings on marriage, sexuality and gender and said that they were not obligated to accept the assertions made by LGBTQ activists. He reminded them that they were entitled under English law to voice and follow their own beliefs. His sermon included this statement:
So, all in all, if you are at ease with “all this LGBT stuff,” you’re entitled to keep to those ideas; if you are not comfortable with it, for the various especially religious reasons, you should not feel required to change. Whichever side of this conflict of ideas you come down on, or even if you are unsure of some of it, the most important thing is to remember that loving your neighbour as yourself does not mean agreeing with everything he or she says; it means that when we have these discussions there is no excuse for personal attacks or abusive language. We should all respect that people on each side of the debate have deep and strongly held convictions.
Here is the full sermon.
He was immediately set upon by an array of activists demanding his firing. His filing alleges that he was “blacklisted” by the Bishop of Derby, the Rt. Rev. Libby Lane, to prevent his work as a minister. He claims that he was also labeled a “moderate risk to children.” In July 2021, Randall was also reportedly told that he had to undergo an independent safeguarding assessment by a psychologist who specialized in assessing sex-offenders. He declined.
Documents also reportedly reveal that a senior member of the diocese objected that “there are a disproportionate number of people who are drawn to schools via the Church who have ‘this way of thinking.’” A team later concluded that Randall represented a “reputational risk” and that these teachings, of the Church of England, present “a risk factor to itself.”
At a recent legal hearing at East Midlands Employment Tribunal last September, Employment Judge Victoria Butler was dismissive of any free speech or academic freedom concerns. Butler declared “the duty to safeguard pupils from the risk of harm and the requirement to comply with the Independent Schools Standards Regulator outweigh the Claimant’s right to express his beliefs in the manner he did in a school environment.” Randall is appealing Butler’s ruling.
The ruling by Butler is regrettably consistent with other cases in the United Kingdom, where free speech is in a virtual free fall.
The decline of free speech in the United Kingdom has long been a concern for free speech advocates (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Once you start as a government to criminalize speech, you end up on a slippery slope of censorship. What constitutes hate speech or “malicious communications” remains a highly subjective matter and we have seen a steady expansion of prohibited terms and words and gestures. That now includes criminalizing “toxic ideologies.”
In the case of Nicholas Brock, the court gave a neo-Nazi a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology.” Police searched Brock’s room and found a montage of hateful symbols as well as weapons, including SS memorabilia and a Ku Klux Klan recognition certificate. Judge Peter Lodder QC declared “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.” Lodder lambasted Brock, declaring
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others… Your bedroom was decorated with SS memorabilia, a framed Ku Klux Klan recognition certificate in your own name was hanging on your wall….You stored documents such as the offensively titled ‘N***er owner’s manual’, you had video clips of Ku Klux Klan discussions about race war, of cross-burning, of decapitation, and a propaganda video of Combat 18, a race-hate neo-Nazi group. The police discovered racist ‘memes’, a copy of the Christchurch mosque murderer’s livestream video and a news clip of the proscribed terrorist group National Action. In addition, your stored photographs of you wearing a balaclava and holding firearms in poses reminiscent of the Combat 18 propaganda, and of you in company with other neo-Nazi sympathisers who were making a Nazi salute.
The degree of your devotion is indicated by your decision to cover your upper body and arms with tattoos of symbols associated with neo-Nazism, SS death head skulls, swastikas and of individuals infamous in Hitler’s Germany.”
What is most striking is that Lodder makes clear that it is harboring these views, not disseminating them or taking action that is the crime.
“It is submitted on your behalf that these are not obscure documents, are not specialist material and that two of them can be purchased on-line. That there was no preparation for any act, and that you are in your 50s, walk with a stick there was no evidence of disseminating to others. I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE) acknowledged that others might collect such items for historical or academic purposes but Brock crossed the line because he agreed with the underlying views:
“From the overwhelming evidence shown to the jury, it is clear Brock had material which demonstrates he went far beyond the legitimate actions of a military collector…Brock showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
As I noted at the time, this decision showed the slippery slope of censorship in the United Kingdom. What constitutes “toxic” views of “”right-wing extremism” can change and expand over time. In this case, a minister challenging LGBTQ ideology is now considered a threat to students.
It would seem that there were a myriad of options for the Church beyond termination and alleged blacklisting. It could have presented countervailing views, as it did when it invited Barnes to the school. Instead, the diocese is now being accused of religious discrimination, harassment and a breach of the Equality Act 2010.
We will continue to follow the case.
Ironically, in the USA his lawsuit would be dismissed instantly, under the ministerial exception. The Church of England is entitled to decide for itself what its doctrines are, and to require its ministers to comply with those doctrines. If it decides (as it appears to have done) that Anglicanism demands “smashing heteronormativity” and that students must not hold any beliefs that contradict the LGBQWERTY agenda, nor tolerate any such beliefs in others, then that is what its ministers must preach, and this fellow is clearly an apostate and a heretic whom the Church is entitled to dismiss and excommunicate.
It is all religion, invented by man out of fear and ignorance.
Couples, couplets, etc. Civil unions for all consenting adults. Lose your politically congruent (“=”) constructs, your Pro-Choice ethical religion.
It’s 2023 – Do You Know Where Your Children Are, America?
________________________________________________
“RABBI AND LABOR LEADER GET MARRIED”
Teachers’ union leader Randi Weingarten and rabbi at New York’s largest LGBT-friendly synagogue tie the knot
By JTA 27 March 2018, 8:11 am
Randi Weingarten, who heads the national union for teachers, and Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum of New York’s leading synagogue for LGBT Jews were married in New York.
– The Times of Israel
Do you know where your children are? What children? We stopped having them.
It’s actually the other way around.
*sigh*
And more of this:
More of this:
https://twitter.com/citizens_sanity/status/1630217694224973824
LGBTQ – Values
…is and oxymoronic contradiction in terms.
LGBTQ “values” will extinguish all human species.
There is literally no future in LGBTQ.
I fully subscribe!
Let’s
Get
Biden
To
Quit
At this rate, JT’s posts on the disintegration of freedom of speech will look like this:
The decline of free speech
in the United Kingdomeverywhere has long been a concern for free speech advocates (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here).Maybe, just maybe he might need to try something a bit more radical.
Seems to me, what Randall said was fairly balanced and common sense.
Two things wokeism is not known for.
England seems to be on a mission, albeit a slow one, to eradicate all the principles of freedom that they bequeathed to America. It’s sad to see the direction we’re headed.
Ummm… you seem to be forgetting the little dustup that freed America from England because they didn’t like the lack of freedom that comes with being ruled by a King.
You’d think by now people would understand the reasons for the Revolution… it was all about Parliamentary representation.
England/Great Britain didn’t bequeath us anything. We broke away because of their attempt to take freedom away from the colonies, which lead to the Declaration of Independence, the War for Independence, and ending ultimately with the Constitution, and more importantly the Bill of Rights, The Bill of Rights reflects everything the Brits tried to do to the Colonies in an effort to suppress the Colonies move away from Great Britain.
Maj229. Our entire early legal system, called the common law, was imported from England. If you check your state’s constitution, it will probably say something like “the common law as of 1783 is adopted as the law of this state.” Pre-independence legal opinions from England are still cited in American courts. Our constituional theories were also drawn from the Whig opponents of the Stuart kings.
“We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
In other words: Dissent is a crime. The speech police will hunt you down. And throw you in jail.
This nightmare from the country that gave us the intellectual father of free speech, John Locke.
Amazing how quickly we went from “we only want to be married” to this…
SDC, the left never stops moving which is why what they are doing now is farce. The “little” kids running these “movements” need to have something to hang their hats on even if the point they are reaching is endorsed by almost nobody, is actually disliked by vast majorities and is even ridiculous.
The shame of it all is that the moderate left doesn’t have the guts or the wherewithal to use their common sense to stop some of this insanity. The gay community is being pushed aside by the radical trans movement, a movement that has gone from just leave us alone, which almost everyone agrees to, to we want to make your children understand that they may be trans. The gay movement is being crowded out by this insane trans movement and it will work to their detriment. Gays used to be arguing to be able to marry and to be accepted for who they are, the trans folks are saying that any gay male should be a female and any gay female should be a male. Where does this leave the gay population? Will we never have gay men or women again?
Trans is an existential threat to the gay community, but I predict this trans movement will be relatively short-lived.
HullBobby,
There is the group Gays Against Groomers.
I think what the Rev. said was well said, and common sense. You want to be or identify as whatever, have at it. Love and marry whomever you want. It is none of my business, the governments business, or the churchs business.
And dont try to force it to be my business.
Respect goes both ways.
SDC – You are on to something. The current carnival of sexual deviancy probably stems from the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision. The Court should have left in place society’s imprimatur on the male-female relationship. In setting aside that millenia-old special status, the S. Ct. lifted the lid on a box containing every kind of sexual identity — expanding, epheremal, confused, imaginary, self-hating – demanding its own special recognition from society and government. In a culture of victimhood, we created dozens of new victim groups.
The forces behind the transgender movement are radicalized activists who have deployed cult tactics to propagate their theology and many people, especially youth are the victims of their tactics. The only thing lacking is a single leader, otherwise this is a cult.
They isolate youth from family, they’ve created their own (inner circle) language, they attack all the pillars of a civilization such as history, freedom to worship, freedom of speech, control information, distort information, mock and ridicule opposition. They attack law and institutions.
We are not dealing with rational thinkers, not even close. This is a theology.
The Achilles heal of cults and radicalism is truth and facts. Those combating their agenda must stand their ground. So often, deception begins with a truth and the truth is twisted and meshed into a lie. This is repeated over and over. The normal everyday citizen has no idea what they are dealing with. They assume most people are logical. They are not prepared.
Give them an inch and they take a mile and want more. They will never stop. This is a theology. The forces behind this movement couldn’t care less about individual humans. It is a front to destroy western civilization. To mutilate and destroy youth by pumping them full of drugs and bizarre ideologies. They despise freethinking and well informed people.
What the world needs most is to recognize this scourge for what it really is and to stand firm and reject their insanity. That does not mean one ever stops loving an individual. Fortunately, many who have been swept away can reach an informed conclusion if they are give enough time and solid truth.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Hopefully saner minds will prevail. Since the Church of England is the official church of the state, one would wonder if this is compelled speech. All the more reason why we have a constitution and separation of powers. You would need an act of Parliament to make the freedom of speech more sacrosanct. Reportedly the constitution of the UK is the accumulated law of the land in the acts of Parliament in1688 (after the Glorious Revolution) and onward and accumulated common law. But Parliament is the ultimate authority and could restrict speech with a simple act ie: the Official Secrets Act which would be unconstitutional in the US. There really is no appeal above parliament. The UK has a Supreme Court (established in 2009) but it cannot overrule Parliament. Also the Monarch and Prime Minister have severely restricted ability to pass yea or nay on Judges picked for the Supreme Court by 2 senior members of that same Supreme Court. You can see the same sort of thing playing out in Israel in a different venue. No Constitution (its government is based on the UK model) but they do have a Supreme Court. Which is self selected, virtually no parliamentary oversight , and can overrule the Knesset simply by saying a law is “unreasonable”. It renders up to 12000 decisions per year often with no statements on the applicable law and no reference to a constitution. UK is is an example of an nearly unbridled Parliament (which answers to the voters, usually) and Israel is an example of an unbridled Court system answerable to no one. And just like college faculties the Israeli Supreme Court picks like minded judges to succeed itself. Imagine that in the US in either circumstance. I think I like our system better. Everyone is answerable to some degree. Like it or not your speech is better protected here but it always is a battle.
@Turley
And people wonder why we have the Constitution and the amendments.
There’s the first, and then the second.
The first allows one to express an opinion freely.
The second protects the 1st.
If this is unique from other nations… lets call it American Exceptionalism.
Unfortunately the leftists in this country including those in the current administration and who are ironically supported by much of the so-called free press are totally devoted to eroding if not eliminating both Amendments through mob pressure, academic and news suppression, and highly suspect executive orders. In the Orwellian world we now reside in, free speech is fascism.
We are marching ever faster into the past; a dark, terrifying past where scapegoats and people who did not agree with the ruling regime were persecuted. This is not a good thing. The most frightening thing of all is that the generation that will be called upon to defend the nation–which WILL need defending in the near future–will be incapable of doing so for a multitude of reasons.
Mary – that is definitely a worry. Regardless of the effectiveness of weaponry, if we have a dominant class of citizens that is morally and spiritually bankrupt, civilization will come crashing down. It happened in Rome and it can happen here, unfortunately. I worry about my kinds and grandchildren – what kind of life will they have?
That was silly, you can not reason with progressive clowns. Laugh at their stupidity and enjoy the entertainment.
Apparently the American Woke Left aren’t the only ones trying to criminalize opposing viewpoints. Of course, we’re talking about an ordained minister from the Church of England so being a Christian automatically makes him fair game I suppose. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent and important article.