How the PSED Misuse Suppressed My Voice in Brighton's Civic Life

After signing a letter defending pastoral freedom, I was quietly excluded from civic roles in Brighton. No vote. No process. Just erasure. The High Court’s Smith judgment confirms what happened to me was wrong—and likely unlawful. Equality must not mean ideology..

How the misuse of the Public Sector Equality Duty erased my voice—and why the courts now agree it was wrong.

As someone who has spent decades serving the common good in civic and interfaith life in Brighton and Hove, the recent Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police High Court judgment stirred something deeply personal in me. It affirmed a principle I’ve long held but which, until now, had no formal legal footing: public authorities have no right to exclude or marginalise individuals simply because of their legally protected beliefs.Subscribed

The ruling is a landmark for freedom of belief in Britain. Mr Justice Swift ruled that “public authorities must remain neutral as between competing political or moral positions”¹. This includes religious and philosophical convictions, even those that others might find uncomfortable. No public body has the right to punish a citizen for lawful, sincerely held beliefs.

This matters to me because in 2022, I was effectively excluded from civic representation in Brighton & Hove on precisely these grounds.

I had served as a long-standing community leader, having chaired both the Brighton and Hove Faith Council and Brighton and Hove Faith in Action (BHFA), a recognised partner in the city’s Third Sector Investment Programme (TSIP). In fact, I am the only individual to have chaired both organisations—roles to which I was elected by peers from across faith traditions, not political allies². I was also elected by the members of Community Works—the city’s umbrella network for voluntary and community sector organisations—to represent faith communities on their Representative Committee³.

The catalyst for my exclusion was my decision to sign, in late 2021, an open letter to the Government expressing concern about its proposed legislation on so-called “conversion therapy.” This term—ill-defined and ideologically loaded—was being used to describe a wide spectrum of activity, from coercive and abusive practices (which I wholeheartedly reject and condemn) to consensual pastoral conversations, prayer, or the teaching of biblical doctrine on sex and identity.

My concern, shared by many respected clergy and legal professionals, was that the proposed law could criminalise the freedom of individuals to seek help in living according to their faith and conscience⁴. The letter was co-signed by more than 2,500 clergy, rabbis, imams, and other religious leaders, representing a broad and diverse interfaith coalition united in their concern for freedom of belief and pastoral care⁵. I believed, and still do, that to forbid prayer, pastoral care, or spiritual counsel offered freely and without coercion would not only breach religious liberty but violate common sense and compassion. I signed the letter not as Chair of BHFA or the Faith Council, but as a Christian bishop acting in a personal and representative religious capacity.

Nonetheless, BHCC officers demanded meetings with BHFA trustees and expressed concern about my continued leadership. At those meetings, council officers not only criticised me personally but also made broader criticisms of mainstream religious doctrine—including the notion of sin. They cited the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) as justification for their concerns, implying that the presence of someone holding my views might place BHFA in breach of equality expectations. On that basis, they suggested that the organisation’s eligibility for TSIP funding might be subject to review if I remained in post⁶.

My fellow trustees, anxious about funding and reputational damage, began to feel the pressure. Though there was no formal allegation, vote of no confidence, or challenge to my elected standing, I stepped down as BHFA Chair to avoid causing division—citing health and time commitments. But the truth is, this was a courteous act in the face of real coercion⁷.

What followed was more disconcerting. Though I had been re-elected by Community Works’ membership as Faith Representative, the organisation refused to ratify or publicise my appointment. I was delisted, emails went unanswered, and I was excluded from all activities—without explanation, consultation, or even a conversation. At a private meeting, their then-CEO disclosed that an LGBT-identified faith group had raised objections to my views, and that CW was informally reviewing my position. That process was never explained, nor was I ever given an opportunity to respond. My removal was silent and total—an erasure⁸.

This case also draws attention to a broader and increasingly well-documented problem: the misuse of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by ideologically motivated activists embedded within public bodies. Originally designed to protect individuals from discrimination, the PSED is now often interpreted expansively and subjectively by equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) officers to suppress dissenting views—especially traditional religious or conservative beliefs. Critics have warned that the duty is being applied not with neutral procedural intent, but as a tool to enforce political conformity. This includes instances of compelled speech, censorship of alternative moral or philosophical positions, and the institutional marginalisation of those who dissent from prevailing ideologies concerning gender, sexuality, or race⁹. A Policy Exchange report specifically highlights how the PSED has been “instrumentalised” to sideline religious or conservative perspectives under the guise of inclusion¹⁰. It is a striking irony that a law meant to ensure equality is now being used to undermine pluralism and civic impartiality.

The Smith judgment has now made clear that public authorities and those acting on their behalf must not discriminate on the basis of lawfully protected beliefs. The High Court has affirmed that impartiality is not optional. In my case, BHCC acted improperly in pressuring BHFA trustees over my Christian views. Community Works, in turn, acted improperly in excluding me from the faith representative role to which I had been duly elected¹¹.

Unfortunately, the legal time limits to bring a formal claim under the Equality Act 2010 have now expired. Nevertheless, I have instructed legal counsel to write once again to Brighton & Hove City Council, Community Works, and BHFA requesting a public apology and formal acknowledgment of the wrongdoing I suffered. I do so not for personal vindication, but in the hope that future acts of exclusion and quiet discrimination may be prevented¹².

The Smith judgment has implications not only for local councils but for national government policy. The original consultation response to the proposed conversion therapy ban, like the behaviour of Brighton & Hove officials, seemed more responsive to activist pressure than to reasoned and representative religious voices¹³.

What happened in Brighton is not isolated. It reflects a broader trend in British public life: the narrowing of acceptable opinion under the guise of inclusion, and the ideological capture of civic institutions once committed to impartiality.

Faith representation, especially in a city like Brighton and Hove, should not mean conformity to a narrow ideological script. It should mean real diversity, robust dialogue, and equal dignity for people of all sincerely held beliefs.

The Smith ruling gives fresh hope that this may one day be true again.

It is now imperative that a proper and principled understanding of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) be restored and consistently applied across all institutions and public bodies. The PSED must not serve as a pretext for ideological enforcement, but as a genuine safeguard for fairness, impartiality, and lawful pluralism. Unless this corrective takes place, the Duty risks becoming an instrument of coercion rather than protection, accelerating the damaging and disruptive advance of harmful ideologies—particularly within schools, councils, and civic spaces—where genuine diversity of thought and belief ought to flourish.

Selsey Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, [2025] EWHC 1782 (Admin), para. 95.
“Concerning the Minister’s Consultation Response,” Selsey.org, 16 Sept 2023, https://selsey.org/2023/09/16/concerning-the-ministers-consultation-response/.
Community Works coordinates the faith sector and manages Brighton and Hove’s Third Sector Investment Programme (TSIP).
Ibid.
The open letter was submitted to Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, then Minister for Women and Equalities, by the Christian Legal Centre and a coalition of religious leaders.
Correspondence and trustee accounts confirm BHCC officials invoked the PSED during meetings with BHFA in early 2022.
“Concerning the Minister’s Consultation Response,” section: Unlawful discrimination in civic society?
Ibid., section: The erosion of civic neutrality.
See e.g. Joanna Williams, How Woke Won (2022), and recent EDI audits critiqued in The Critic, March 2023.
“Fair Equality or False Neutrality? The Misuse of the Public Sector Equality Duty”, Policy Exchange, 2020.
Smith, paras. 79–96; also Equal Treatment Bench Book (Judicial College), February 2021, on impartiality and freedom of belief.
The limitation period under the Equality Act 2010 is three months less one day from the last act of discrimination, subject to discretion of the Tribunal.
Selsey.org, ibid., final section reflecting on institutional neutrality and ideological capture.