The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Essay

The compare and Human Rights explosive charge (EHRC) - endeavor ExampleDuring the last few years, United Kingdom has witnessed quartette important appeals from British citizens regarding an attack on their individual Christian Faiths. The UK Courts of Law have integrated the quad incidents into two cases. They have gained prominence by the name of Eweida and Chaplin Vs the UK and Ladele and McFarlene Vs the UK.Initially, the applicants had approached the UK Courts of Law, who had rejected their appeal due to the non-fulfillment of certain conditions. However, the cases are still in its proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights. However, this time, the EHRC has decided to intervene to ensure a fair trial to the applicants. The master(prenominal) Issues The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is a non-departmental public organization which was established according to UKs Equality Act of 2006. It started functioning from October 2007 and was Britains only organizat ion which supervised issues relating to equality and human rights in the country. The Commission works towards reducing inequality, eliminating discrimination and encouraging good relations among the citizens. It also ensures the protection of their rights in a variety of circumstances. On September 15, 2011 the EHRC notified the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of its plan of intervening in four cases regarding the practice of religious discrimination in the workplace. These were four separate cases relate four British government employees who were subject to unlawful discrimination regarding their Christian beliefs. The individuals involved were Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee, Shirley Chaplin, a government infirmary nurse, Lillian Ladelle, a marriage registrar in London and Gary McFarlane, a counsel. The European Court combined the cases of these four persons into two cases Eweida and Chaplin Vs the UK and Ladele and McFarlene Vs the UK. In the first case, both the women were asked to conceal or remove the Christian cross worn-out on their necklaces, by their respective workplace politics. Eweida worked as a check-in staff in the British Airways counter at Londons Heathrow Airport, while Chaplin was employed as a nurse in a government hospital. Being Christians by faith, both Eweida and Chaplin were used to wearing a cross fix to their necklaces. However, their respective management authorities did not approve of this and asked the women to either hide the cross beneath their attire or stop wearing it altogether. This was definitely an attack on their religious sentiments. While the authorities accommodated the customs duty of employees belonging to other religions, they discriminated against these Christian women. In the second case, the two Christians Ladele and McFarlene were dismissed from their jobs as they refused to be involved in actions contradicting their religion. Ladelle was employed as a marriage registrar in Londons Isli ngton Council. When she asked the authorities to exclude her from legalizing homosexual relationships, the management decided to discontinue her services. On the other hand, McFarlene served as a counselor in a government counseling service who used to provide advice to heterosexual as nearly as homosexual couples. However, in some cases he had declined to offer psycho-sexual therapy to homosexual couples and as a exit was terminated from