A Christian nurse is suing the Portman Clinic in North London for forcing students to learn – and believe – racist ideology.
“They are forcing Critical Race Theory onto people – you’re not allowed to disagree with it, or they will bully you for two years,” said Amy Gallagher, 33, a forensic psychology student, as reported by FOX Business. She said she has been discriminated against due to her race and beliefs.
The issue first began in October 2020 when she and other students were forced to take part in a lecture called “Whiteness – a Problem of Our Time.” The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust runs the clinic and the educational program. The lecture claimed that “the problem is racism is a problem of whiteness” and students were instructed to confront “the reality of whiteness,” said Gallagher.
Gallagher is suing the NHS for forcing her to represent views she does not believe in.
“I’m bringing this legal case to protect my career, but it’s also there in the courts. The NHS is forcing someone to adopt a racist ideology, and it needs to be stopped,” Gallagher stated. A GoFundMe account has raised more than $24,000 for her lawsuit. The Bad Law Project is helping Gallagher in her case.
Dr. Anna Loutfi, legal head of Bad Law Project said, “The ‘lack of belief’ draws attention to something that people are not talking about in the free speech world in the West, which I think is covered by the Equality Act under lack of belief, which is you have the right not to be forced to sign up a set of values or ideology with which you do not agree.”
This type of case isn't new in the UK, unfortunately. Earlier this year, UK nurse Mary Onuoha was harassed for wearing a gold cross necklace at work. Represented by the Christian Legal Centre, Onuoha successfully sued the NHS. What's astounding is that her co-workers of other faiths were allowed to wear hijabs and turbans, without any pushback. Officials said these were “welcomed as a sign of diversity.” The hypocrisy was hard to believe.
The court ruled in Onuoha's favor, stating that NHS was “offensive and intimidating”, according to Decision Magazine. Hopefully we will see a similar ruling in Gallagher's case.