Her headwear forms part of the traditional habit worn by nuns, but was deemed an “ostentatious religious symbol” by social workers who said it breached France’s secular values.

Social workers in eastern France wrote to the nun, who is in her 70s, when she applied for a room in the Résidences Autonomuie, a local care home in Vesoul.

In the letter, they told the nun, that she would be eligible for a spot in the care home if she removed her veil.

The letter said: “In order to respect signs of secularism, any ostentatious signs of belonging to a religious community cannot be accepted.”

The mayor of Vasoul has pledged to overturn the decision, and said the social workers had made an “error in interpretation” of secular values. Mayor Alain Chrétien said the ban on religious symbols applied to government employees, including care home workers, but not to residents.

In recent years, officials have used a century old law that separates the church and the state to ban Muslims employed by government bodies from wearing headscarves on the grounds that the garment would reintroduce religion into French public life.

Stay up to date with the latest news stories from a Christian perspective. Sign up to our daily newsletter and receive more stories like this straight to your inbox every morning.

Earlier this year, humanists Lee and Lizanne Harris claimed their children’s human rights were being breached when they were put in a classroom at Burford Primary with just an iPad and a teaching assistant while other pupils sat through collective worship.

They previously withdrew their children after claiming they’d noticed harmful aspects of evangelism spreading into assemblies and other parts of the school.

They took legal action claiming better provision should be given to their children with the High Court being asked to intervene.

The Oxford Diocesan Schools Trust has now settled the case out of court.

Humanists UK said the decision marks a significant win against Christian worship in schools but in a statement to Premier the Oxfordshire Diocesan Schools Trust said it was simply a “pragmatic decision to avoid wholly unnecessary court costs”.

The concessions made by the school include:

– Age-appropriate materials for spiritual, moral, social and cultural development being made available to children who’ve been withdrawn from assemblies
– No clergy to lead school events other than collective worship
– Not permitting the local church to provide free Bibles for school leavers (something which stopped last year)

Lee and Lizanne Harris said: “We are delighted that the school has backed down and agreed to provide our children with an alternative, inclusive assembly of…

As of January same sex couples will be able to marry there after an intervention by politicians in Westminster while the Northern Ireland Assembly is in stalemate.

According to CI, the changes go much further than current laws in Great Britain with fears there won’t be protection for church ministers who object.

CI is calling for the law to be exactly the same as the rest of the country, ensuring freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association.

CI spokesman Simon Calvert said: “Same-sex marriage is about to be legalised from 13 January and proper protections for those who disagree will not be in force. That’s the implication of what the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) says.
 
“Parliament took the best part of a year to debate introducing same-sex marriage in England and Wales. For Northern Ireland, MPs took only a couple of hours. In the rest of the UK there are many protections for those who disagree with same-sex marriage. Not so in Northern Ireland, with the Secretary of State and the NIO not seeming to be bothered.
 
“Churches must not be sued if they refuse to do a same-sex marriage and public order law must be amended to stop church ministers being prosecuted for sermons that disagree with same-sex marriage. The new law has to make this clear.”

Currently any church leader in the rest of the UK unwilling to conduct a same sex marriage is…

Harry Miller was contacted by Humberside Police following an anonymous phone call reporting a number of his posts on Twitter as ‘offensive’ and ‘transphobic’.

The former police officer and Christian is seeking a judicial review of the College of Policing guidelines after the “non-crime hate incident” was listed on his permanent record.

The court heard he was told he had not committed a crime, but his post was being recorded as a “hate incident”.

Mr Miller argues the guidelines undermine his human rights and that “simply being upset” by a person’s comments should not be a basis for police interference.

Christian Concern has been supporting Miller in his case.

Legal Counsel Roger Kiska told Premier these hate incidents are reported without proof and can impact job prospects: “It’s an incredibly subjective term which means whatever the so-called victim feels it means, so no real crime has to be shown and this shows up on your enhanced DBS check which can make you unemployable.”

“Miller didn’t say anything illegal or criminal… and this will stay on his record and will follow him around.

“This could happen to literally anyone,” he added.

Kiska says the Legal Centre are calling for the non-crime listing to be removed from Miller’s record: “If it is based merely based on the perception of someone feeling offense, it is such a disproportionate impact on the person being…

Saif ul-Malook (pictured above right), who helped get Asia Bibi’s conviction overturned, has told lawyers and academics in London that he is involved with another blasphemy case in Pakistan.

He told a seminar chaired by a London-based barrister that no Christian accused of blasphemy could get a fair trial in Pakistan.

Ms Bibi, a Pakistani, was convicted of blasphemy in 2010 after being accused of insulting the Prophet Mohammed after she drank from the same well as Muslim co-workers. She was held for eight years before her conviction was overturned by the Pakistani Supreme Court. She now lives in Canada.

Mr ul-Malook, who is also Pakistani, aired his thoughts at a seminar, staged to discuss freedom of religion in Pakistan and chaired by barrister Zimran Samuel, during a visit to London.

He said that when he took up Ms Bibi’s case no one would help him because they thought they would not be safe in his company.

“Can a Christian accused of blasphemy get a fair trial in Pakistan?” Mr ul-Malook asked.

“The short answer is ‘no’. A big ‘no’.”

He said no one would sit with him when he was working on Ms Bibi’s case and added: “They said, ‘he is going to get killed. Why should we sit with him to be killed?'”

Mr ul-Malook was asked why he was continuing to work in Pakistan when his life was at risk.

He said he wanted to keep helping…