Fighting prejudice with prejudice.

I saw a story last week on a Christian couple, Eunice and Owen Johns, who have been told by two high court judges that they can no longer foster children because of the religious views they hold. The issue in question is their views on sexuality, being Christians their opinion is that homosexuality is wrong.

According to social services, under the introduction of equality laws the couple are no longer suitable to foster children because of their religious faith. The social worker handling the case was Lynda Williams who described the couple as: “kind and hospitable people who would always do their best to make a child welcome and comfortable”.

However she went on to conclude: “Mr and Mrs Johns’ views on same sex relationships, which are not in line with the current requirements of the national standards, and which are not susceptible to change, will need to be considered when the panel reaches its conclusion.”

I honestly can’t believe how this has happened. How a couple who have fostered 20 children during the 1990s are now being told they are unsuitable. The United Kingdom is currently short of 10,000 foster carers. Make that 10,001. That fact makes this case look even more ridiculous.

Do the government even want children to be cared for in a foster home? Surely having a child raised in foster care is better for them than having them looked after in a care home. The children they would care for would have been between the ages of five and eight, it would have been incredibly unlikely that the child would be questioning their sexuality at that age. But if they did, the foster carer should be expected to tell them that gay sex is okay.

After losing their case the couple said they were willing to “love and accept any child” going on to say: “All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.” I think the word practice is also an important point that doesn’t seem to have been considered. Surely practicing any sex between the ages of five and eight should be frowned upon.

To add salt to the horrible wound, the couple were also told by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, that they could attend a “re-education” programme. Prejudice is classically defined as a biased opinion based on insufficient knowledge. I think based on this the Equality and Human Rights Commission are clearly prejudiced towards the Johns. You can’t pick and choose which prejudices are deemed okay and which aren’t. That’s just plain idiocy.

According to the letter of the law this decision is the right one. As foster carers they are there to give love, care and support to a child, however they are not to give them any of their beliefs or ideals. Well I’m afraid children aren’t robots, you can't decide what to program them with and what to leave out. How does a child between the age of five and eight not pick up any ideals from their foster carer? 

So does this also mean that whilst under the care of a foster parent that the child cannot attend a church, or a mosque, or watch television, or listen to their friends, or even catch a glimpse of a newspaper. Look at the Daily Star, a paper so obviously anti-Muslim that influences thousands of readers every day, and yet here we are not allowing a Christian couple to care for children.

This is a law that is ironically based on the beliefs and ideology of Christianity, and now we find ourselves in 2011 fighting prejudice with prejudice. In our fight against discrimination towards homosexuals we end up discriminating against people who would otherwise be able to do a fantastic job for society. Where does that get us? There is no hierarchy of prejudices, all prejudice are as bad as each other. We can’t replace one with another and expect a problem to be solved. We have to work at eradicating all prejudices.

All we’ve been hearing from David Cameron in recent months is that “we’re all in this together” and that Britain needs a ‘big society’ where everyone pitches in and does their bit. Well Eunice and Owen Johns are simply trying to do just that: their bit, and they’ve been told they can’t because they’re Christians. What makes it worse is that the couple have been a big part of their community in supporting the many children who’ve been in their care over the years. Their reward is to be slapped across the face, and to be made out as lesser citizens by a law that was put in place to prevent such things from happening.

I know this is a tricky debate, we shouldn’t hold prejudice against homosexuals, but we also shouldn’t hold prejudice against religions. It's such a fine balancing act. Gay-rights activists will no doubt be welcoming this ruling, and that’s fair enough, but there are 10,001 children out there who won’t be. I can guarantee that Eunice and Owen Johns would make better foster carers than a lot of parents in this country.

We’re currently living in a society that stops Christians fostering kids, but allows poor defenceless children like Peter Connelly to be killed by their own parents. Am I the only one who finds this whole thing completely insane? Surely common sense will prevail. Surely.