“Leeds Students Welcome Refugees” – Student Societies Show Solidarity with Ukraine

The LUU societies STAR (Student Action for Refugees) and Amnesty International have been organising displays of solidarity with Ukraine around campus. 

Soon after Russia invaded Ukraine, STAR created a banner with the Ukrainian flag in the centre, around which students could write messages of support. This banner was then hung up in the LUU foyer. 

Messages written by students included “justice for the POC fleeing Ukraine” in response to myriad stories of people of colour facing racist discriminiation both as they leave Ukraine and as they try to settle into countries taking in refugees like Poland. Another student wished to show solidarity with ordinary Russians, some of whom have publicly protested the unprovoked invasion, leading to mass arrests, and others have fled to neighbouring countries like Finland, writing “Putin’s war not Russia’s war.” 

Similarly, Amnesty members wrote messages in chalk around campus. Many students protested the British government’s refusal to take in refugees, including turning away 300 at the Channel Crossing at Calais. This response is part of the Home Office’s strategy to neglect their responsibility to take in refugees by passing the controversial Nationality and Borders bill which would leave most refugees seeking asylum with a lesser status with fewer rights (clause 11) and which empowers the Home Office to strip British nationals of their citizenship without notice (clause 9). 

As Rona, the President of LUU Amnesty said, “Our campaign this semester is based on the Nationality and Borders bill, so our aim is to get as many as possible to know about it. We thought the best way to do this was by writing messages in chalk either supporting the refugees coming to the UK or in opposition to the government. Initially it was just about refugees coming to the UK but as the Ukraine war became more of an issue, we knew we had to tie it in somehow. The slogan “no one is illegal” really encapsulates our mindset and Amnesty’s whole stance on the refugee crisis.” 

Last week, LUU Amnesty held their biannual live music event Jamnesty and raised £1044 to be split equally between Leeds Asylum Seekers Support Network which supports refugees and asylum seekers in Leeds and Amnesty International.

LUU Amnesty are continuing to raise money for the charities by selling hand-printed tote bags. Purchases can be made on Engage for £5.50. 

What a court case about a cake says of religious expression and LGBTQ rights in Northern Ireland

In 2014, a Christian-run bakery in Belfast sparked controversy when they refused to make a cake for local gay rights activist Gareth Lee emblazoned with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage”. The owners of Ashers Bakery argued  that the slogan contravened their religious beliefs. Mr Lee alleged that the bakery had discriminated against him for his sexual orientation, and thus a seven-year court battle began. Despite a Belfast County Court and Court of Appeal initially ruling in favour of Mr Lee, earlier this year the European Court of Human Rights ruled that his claim was inadmissible, and said they would not reconsider the decision of the UK Supreme Court, which had overturned a £500 damages award imposed on Ashers Bakery in 2018.  

The case has sparked outrage from LGBTQ organisations who support Mr Lee’s claims and fear that the UK Supreme Court and ECHR rulings are detrimental for human rights and LGBTQ freedoms in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, religious groups argue that the initial ruling by the Belfast County Court in favour of Mr Lee represented an affront to free religious expression, by suggesting that the bakery should have produced a cake which went against their personal religious beliefs.  

The McArthurs – the owners of Ashers Bakery – are evangelical Christians. The main argument employed by those who supported their right to decline making the cake was that the proposed message contravened their political and religious beliefs. In other words, the McArthurs were not discriminating against Mr Lee for being gay, rather they were exercising their right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, by refusing to bake a cake with a message that went against their religion. According to this argument, the McArthurs would have refused to make a cake decorated in the message “Support Gay Marriage” for any customer – regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.  

Despite various Northern Irish Christian groups’ claims that the McArthurs’ actions came from a religious opposition to gay marriage rather than homophobia, many gay rights activists have dismissed this as a technicality. When the case was heard at the UK Supreme Court in 2018, the main consideration was whether the McArthurs had refused to make the cake because of Mr Lee’s sexual orientation, or because they disagreed with the message they were being asked to put on it. The Court ultimately ruled in favour of the latter – a decision which the ECHR upheld earlier this year. Many LGBTQ activists were staunchly opposed to the verdict, including Stonewall’s CEO Nancy Kelley, who called it a “backwards step for equality” and said that “no discriminatory behaviour should be held up by equality law”.  

It is important to bear in mind that LGBTQ laws have changed significantly since the controversy began in 2014. In 2014, same-sex marriage was not yet legalised in Northern Ireland, and so it was a topic which was seemingly up for debate – especially amongst religious, political and LGBTQ groups. However, same-sex marriage was legalised in Northern Ireland in 2020. One may question if the McArthurs would have won the case if the incident had taken place after the legalisation of gay marriage. In the context of 2014, their refusal to bake the cake may be seen as a more palatable political disagreement, but how we understand other similar cases in the future may differ significantly.   

Nevertheless, the Northern Irish political sphere continues to be dominated by religious affiliations and divisions, mainly along Protestant and Catholic lines. Attitudes towards the LGBTQ community in Northern Ireland have traditionally been slower to advance than the rest of the UK. For instance, Northern Ireland was the last region in the UK to decriminalise same-sex activity and the last to legalise same-sex marriage. Most liberalisation of LGBTQ rights in Northern Ireland has been achieved under direct rule by the Government of the United Kingdom rather than through laws passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. This pattern is mainly due to the dominance of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) under Northern Ireland’s power-sharing system. The DUP is a socially conservative political party with strong links to the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, and many of its members are evangelical Christians who oppose LGBTQ rights in Northern Ireland and condemn homosexuality. However, attitudes in Northern Ireland appear to be changing following the legalisation of same-sex marriage and the associated liberalisation of LGBTQ rights. For instance, Jeffery Donaldson became the first DUP leader to have an official meeting with an LGBT group after he met with the Rainbow Project in September 2021.  

The ‘Gay Cake Case’ is a complicated one. It raises a number of interesting questions that have implications beyond the outcome of this one court ruling in particular. It draws attention to the complex relationship between religious and LGBT rights – and the complications that can arise when the two come into conflict. Would the verdict have been different if a LGBT-owned bakery refused to bake a cake with a religious slogan for an evangelical Christian customer?  And, more to the point: should it?

Image credit: Unsplash

Love Bomb: The West’s obsession with dropping bombs and extrajudicial killing

A forever changing nature of war has led to many criticisms against the West for their involvement in extrajudicial killing (the targeted murder of individuals without regard for formal legal processes.)This creates many implications that have bled into international human rights law. Josh Bate considers the West’s use of drones that have formed a new era of state violence.