Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore

Symon Hill (@SymonHill) is associate director of Ekklesia and author of The No-Nonsense Guide to Religion; this summer, he will walk from Birmingham to London as a pilgrimage of repentance for his former homophobia

Tiny-baby The Daily Telegraph reported yesterday that a Christian couple have been “banned from becoming foster parents because of their faith-based opposition to homosexuality”, the Daily Mail declared “Christian beliefs DO lose out to gay rights”; In reality, no such ruling has been made. The judges declined to rule on whether the couple involved, Owen and Eunice Johns, should be allowed to be foster parents.

The case came about after discussion between the Johnses and Derby City Council. The Johnses object to same-sex relationships.

They said that if they were fostering a child who was being considered for adoption by a same-sex couple, they would not want to allow that couple into their house.

It seemed to be unclear whether this should affect their chances of being foster parents, so the couple and Derby City Council agreed to bring a judicial review over the issue and allow the court to decide.

The two judges expressed their frustration with both the couple and the council, declaring:

“The parties have:

(a) Been unable to agree on an appropriately focused question for the court to address;

(b) Each identified questions that do not raise a question of law that can be answered with anything approaching a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’; and

(c) Furnished the court with no evidence.

While refusing to rule on the question of the Johns’ suitability, the judges said that it could be appropriate for a council to take prospective foster parents’ views on sexuality into account, but they emphasised:

“This is not a prying intervention into mere belief… The local authority is entitled to explore the extent to which prospective foster carers’ beliefs may affect their behaviour, their treatment of a child being fostered by them.”

This angered the Christian Legal Centre (CLC). The CLC is an organisation closely linked to Christian Concern (known until recently as Christian Concern For Our Nation), a socially conservative lobby group. A CLC press release following the court’s ruling opened with the following sentence:

“In a landmark judgment, which will have a serious impact on the future of fostering and adoption in the UK, the High Court has suggested that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers.”

In reality, the judges had refused to rule even on the suitability of the Johnses to be foster carers; their comment on the suitability of Christians to be foster parents was almost exactly opposite to the view the CLC attributed to them.

The judges stated:

“No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not ‘fit and proper’ persons to foster or adopt. No one is contending for a blanket ban. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief…

“No one is seeking to give Christians, Jews or Muslims or, indeed, peoples of any faith, a second class status.”

It seems that certain journalists have been too willing to accept the CLC’s misleading claims. The way this story has been reported fits into the ‘gays v Christians’ narrative suited to lazy journalism. In reality, Christians and other religious people hold a range of views on sexuality.

Inaccurate reports portray religion and human rights as natural enemies, but they do nothing to protect people’s rights or to promote understanding between people who disagree.

• The text of the High Court’s judgment can be read here.

http://twitter.com/mudlarklives/status/42868766111051776 Clay Harris

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
http://twitter.com/foxinclogs/status/42869724404658176 Chris Owen

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
http://twitter.com/davejoyner/status/42870265293713408 davejoyner

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
http://twitter.com/tomwburke/status/42872267352453120 Tom Burke

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
http://twitter.com/zoe_sutherland/status/42875372173398016 Zoe Sutherland

Incredibly important points RT @leftfootfwd @SymonHill Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore http://bit.ly/f7ueuA
http://twitter.com/clivemcr/status/42875693821984768 Clive

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
http://twitter.com/mattvaller/status/42876175789473792 Matt Valler

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
http://twitter.com/danielelton/status/42881922447319040 Daniel Elton

RT The reality behind the latest drummed-up 'gays versus christians' furore @leftfootfwd: http://bit.ly/gPW9rA
http://twitter.com/oldmankelv/status/42886564287746048 Kelvin John Edge

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
http://twitter.com/myinfamy/status/42890556287877120 Daniel Pitt

Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA
http://twitter.com/mariealicia1/status/42891783667060736 Marie McDaniel

Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: The way this story has been reported fits into the '… http://bit.ly/dHBczg
http://twitter.com/mattbeaney/status/42903204387749888 Matt Beaney

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
http://www.liberal-vision.org/2011/03/02/left-foot-forward-expose-anti-christian-myth/ Liberal Vision » Blog Archive » Left Foot Forward expose anti-Christian myth

[...] in this article, their guest writer Symon Hill reveals the facts behind yesterday’s misreported Christians [...]
http://twitter.com/tony_gee/status/42931584592125952 Tony Gee

@Radionotme per y'day RT @leftfootfwd Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
http://twitter.com/symonhill/status/42934586770075648 Symon Hill

Lazy journalism surrounds #Christian foster parents furore – http://tinyurl.com/4bxv6wx – My article on @leftfootfwd #LGBT
http://twitter.com/atlumschema/status/42937535856508928 atlumschema

RT @SymonHill: Lazy journalism surrounds #Christian foster parents furore – http://tinyurl.com/4bxv6wx – My article on @leftfootfwd #LGBT
http://twitter.com/tinnles/status/42944187380936704 Anne Peat

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/03/foster-parents-adoption-furor/
Michael

This is actually the lazy journalism. If you are not willing to read the entire ruling, at least read the last paragraph:

“For the reasons given in [107] we have concluded that we should make no order. Moreover, in the light of the cumulative effect of our conclusions in [90]-[106], in particular, contrary to the submissions on behalf of the claimants, our conclusions that the attitudes of potential foster carers to sexuality are relevant when considering an application for approval and as to the effect of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Islington London Borough Council v Ladele (Liberty intervening) [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, and McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 880, we have also concluded that we should not grant permission.”
Editor

@Michael,

thank you for your comment. I have contacted the author, who will respond shortly
http://www.repenting.wordpress.com Symon

Thanks for your comment. I’m not sure how you think that the last paragraph contradicts my article. The opening sentence of the last paragraph states that “we have concluded that we should make no order”, i.e. that they cannot rule in favour of either side. As I said in my article, the judges nonetheless stated that attitudes towards sexuality could be relevant for potential foster parents inasmuch as they affect behaviour. They did not say that people who object to same-sex relationships should never be foster parents. They neither granted nor withheld permission for the Johnses to be allowed to foster children. They criticised both the Johnses and Derby Council for failing to ask the court a clear question that they could answer.
http://twitter.com/dealneil/status/43012588623245312 Neil Gardner

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
http://twitter.com/jane__bradley/status/43013432764538880 Jane Bradley

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
http://twitter.com/acsmythe/status/43014787885568000 Andy Smythe

RT @leftfootfwd: Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore: http://bit.ly/f7ueuA writes @SymonHill
Mr. Sensible

Not surprised by this…
http://twitter.com/djhanks/status/43453903966175232 luther

RT @SymonHill Lazy journalism surrounds #Christian foster parents furore – http://tinyurl.com/4bxv6wx – My article on @leftfootfwd #bbcqt
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/03/adoption-right-wing-myths/ Ghastly decline in right wing reporting standards | Left Foot Forward

[...] fact as pointed out by Ekklesia’s Symon Hill on Left Foot Forward the judges made no such ruling. Lord Justice Munby stated: “No one is asserting that Christians [...]