No Free Speech for UK Christians: The Case of Felix Ngole and a Fading Bastion, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)

Dwelling in the shadow of Big Ben, where the ghosts of John Milton and John Stuart Mill once debated the unassailable right to speak one's mind, a quiet erosion is underway. Felix Ngole, a 47-year-old Black social worker from Barnsley, stands at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London, not as a revolutionary, but as a grandfather pleading for the right to work without renouncing his faith. Born in Cameroon, Ngole fled persecution there, drawn to a Britain he imagined as a "bastion of free speech and expression." On October 29, 2025, as his appeal hearing began, he must have felt the irony keenly: the country that welcomed him now seems poised to bar him from his profession for believing what the Bible says about human sexuality.

Ngole's story isn't an isolated grievance; it's a symptom of a broader chill descending on religious expression in the United Kingdom. The tribunal's 2024 ruling, that Touchstone Leeds, an NHS mental health provider, could lawfully withdraw a job offer from the "best-qualified candidate" because of his orthodox Christian views, didn't just discriminate against one man. It greenlit a precedent where employers can prioritise ideological conformity over merit, provided they invoke the sacred cow of "reputational damage" or "service user impact." Ngole's views? That homosexuality and same-sex marriage are sins, expressed in a 2016 Facebook post that sparked his earlier victory against Sheffield University. He won that case in the Court of Appeal in 2019, proving his beliefs wouldn't impair his professional duties. Yet here we are, six years later, with the state apparatus circling back to punish him anew.

Let's recount the timeline with the clarity it deserves, because facts are the first casualty in culture wars. In 2022, Ngole applied for a mental health support worker role at Touchstone Leeds in Wakefield, West Yorkshire. He aced the interviews, emerging as the top candidate. The offer was extended, his "dream job," as supporters call it. Then came the Google search. Management unearthed reports of his Sheffield saga and panicked. Fears of backlash from LGBTQI+ service users, potential self-harm risks, and brand tarnish led to a rescinded offer and a humiliating second interview. Touchstone grilled him on his faith, demanded assurances he wouldn't proselytize, and ultimately passed him over.

The Leeds Employment Tribunal in July 2024 delivered a split verdict that reeks of compromise: direct discrimination in yanking the initial offer (a nod to the Equality Act 2010's protection of religious belief), but "justified" in the final rejection. Why? "Minority stress theory," the idea that orthodox views on sexuality could trigger psychological harm in vulnerable clients, was invoked, backed by expert testimony Touchstone rushed in at the eleventh hour. A panel member with a history of LGBTQI+ advocacy was even recused for bias, yet the ruling stood. Ngole appealed, arguing it creates a two-tier system: one where progressive ideologies are celebrated, and traditional Christian ones are quarantined from public-facing roles.

As of October 31, 2025, the hearing's second day, the outcome remains pending. But Ngole's words outside the courtroom cut deep: "If we get to the point where if you don't celebrate and support LGBT ideology you can't have a job, then every Christian out there doesn't have a future." He's not exaggerating. This isn't about fitness to practice; the Court of Appeal already affirmed that in 2019. It's about enforcing a worldview where dissent is deemed dangerous.

What makes Ngole's plight particularly poignant is his background, a Black African immigrant who sought refuge in a nation built on Protestant dissent. Christianity in the UK isn't a monolith of white, middle-class complacency; it's vibrant among ethnic minorities, from Caribbean Pentecostals in Brixton to Nigerian Anglicans in Peckham. Census data shows over 1.7 million Black Christians in England and Wales alone, many holding views aligned with Ngole's on marriage and sexuality. Yet the discourse often frames these believers as outliers or "culture warriors," ignoring how rulings like this disproportionately silence voices from the Global South, where such orthodoxy is normative.

Consider the irony: Britain prides itself on multiculturalism, yet when a Cameroonian Christian voices biblical convictions, he's branded a threat to "inclusion." This isn't free speech for all; it's free speech for the approved. Ngole's case echoes Dr. David Mackereth's 2018 dismissal from the NHS for refusing to use preferred pronouns, or Kristie Higgs's 2020 sacking for sharing anti-trans posts on Facebook. In each, courts have balanced religious freedom against "equality," often tipping toward the latter under the guise of proportionality. The result? A de facto litmus test for employment in caring professions: affirm or abstain.

And it's not just social work. Teachers, foster carers, even footballers like Crystal Palace's Marc Guehi face backlash for public faith expressions. Guehi's 2024 decision to wear a "Jesus is King" armband sparked calls for FA sanctions, framing evangelism as "hate speech." For Christians of colour, who often infuse their work with unapologetic zeal, this creates a double bind: assimilate to secular norms or risk marginalisation in the very society that invited you.

Ngole's lawyers, backed by the Christian Legal Centre, argue the tribunal's embrace of "minority stress theory" is a slippery slope. First analysed in a UK court here, it posits that mere knowledge of someone's beliefs can exacerbate mental health crises among LGBTQI+ individuals. But as Reverend Dr. Paul Sullins' expert evidence highlighted, submitted by Ngole's team, the theory's application is selective and empirically shaky. It doesn't account for the resilience of service users or the fact that Ngole's views never manifested in discriminatory behaviour. The Court of Appeal in his university case ruled he posed no such risk; why ignore that now?

This precedent empowers employers to pre-emptively discriminate, armed with vague fears rather than proof. Imagine a Muslim counsellor barred for views on gender segregation, or a Hindu nurse for vegetarian advocacy offending meat-eaters? The logic unravels quickly, revealing not neutral "protection" but ideological gatekeeping. As Andrea Williams of the Christian Legal Centre warned, it "opens up the reality of employers discriminating against and denying employment to anyone who does not celebrate and promote complete LGBT affirmation."

On X, the reaction underscores the divide. Supporters like @CConcern rally with prayers for "justice," decrying a Britain that "no longer believes in free speech for Christians." Critics, meanwhile, frame it as safeguarding vulnerable clients, with one user noting Ngole's history as the "start of this 'belief protection racket.'" Both sides have merit, but the former highlights a truth: when "harm" is subjective, the powerful define it to exclude the orthodox.

Ngole's appeal isn't just about one job; it's a referendum on whether the UK honours its Enlightenment heritage or succumbs to a new orthodoxy. Free speech, as Mill argued in On Liberty, thrives on the clash of ideas, not their sanitisation for comfort. Religious freedom, enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, demands more than lip service; it requires space for believers to live their convictions without career sabotage.

For Christians of every hue, from white evangelicals in Essex to Somali Pentecostals in Sheffield, this case is a clarion call. Study hard, qualify brilliantly, but if your faith offends the zeitgeist, the door slams shut. Ngole, studying "as much as you like" yet denied a chance, embodies the human cost. If the tribunal upholds the ruling, it won't just fail one man; it'll signal that Britain's bastion has crumbled, leaving refugees like Ngole to wonder if they traded one oppression for another.

Yet hope flickers. Ngole's 2019 win showed courts can pivot toward fairness. As his appeal concludes, let it remind us: true inclusion doesn't demand celebration of all views, it demands tolerance for those we disagree with most. Anything less, and the UK risks becoming not a haven, but a hall of echoes, where only the approved may speak.

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/10/30/britain-no-longer-believes-in-free-speech-for-christians/