Tommy Robinson asked to leave a restaurant because staff felt uncomfortable serving him…

[harriethoyle]

… AIBU to enjoy this?!

If you spout objectionable views, don’t be surprised if people object to you!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tommy-robinson-kicked-out-hawksmoor-london-b1231594.html

I know the Act reasonaly well, and some of the relevant caselaw, and you are wrong.

Section 29 prohibits a service provider from discriminating against, harassing of victimizing a person.

The definitions of discrimination, harrassment, and victimization can all be found in Chapter 2 of the Act and none of them are relevant here (largely, because the refusal of service was not based on a protected characteristic).

Yes, they are.

It's just that some demographics are more likely to be discriminated against than others.

Thanks - but it appears that Judge Marson's ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal. I will look further another time.

I'd have bought him a pint.

So we have been saying the same thing, in different ways.

He's a first class racist cunt. I wouldn't' piss on him if he was on fire let alone wait on the twat. Well done that restaurant.

Let me spell it out to you. Upthread somebody rightly pointed out that it would be discriminatory using the Equality Act to refuse employment due to political belief. It would be unlawful under employment law.

As such this means that under the Equality law, political belief has become a protected characteristic. You do not get the choice of where that protected characteristic is used.

I doubt the restaurant are worried about some pot bellied racists wrapped in a union jack. His beliefs aren't protected.

🙄 Youre still not getting it. Then again, if you cant understand why 5 seats for Reform, at their first major election outing, is a big thing, I'm not surprised.

Likewise, if a characteristic is protected under employment law, it becomes protected under the equality act in all cases.

In theory perhaps, in practice people holding certain protected characteristics almost certainly trump your right to decide who may enter your establishment.

Also the restaurant would have to prove it was done in a fair universal way. Do they make sure nobody with a conviction enters the premises?

It might be "seen" as discrimination but, legally, it is not.

Protected characteristics are not only relevant in employment matters, the Act is wider than that. It specifically prohibits a service provider from discriminating against customers, and "discrimination" is defined with reference to protected characteristics.

But people are still (almost certainly) wrong to say that Robinson was illegally discriminated against because they are wrongly understanding "religion and belief" to encompass all beliefs.

Conversely it is actions like this restaurant that increases divisive political opinions.

Hawksmoor have released a statement highlighting other guests/patrons also felt uncomfortable with the table. Seems like it was a business/reputation decision.

No they aren’t.

Robinson will just have to accept he is not welcome in certain places.

Yes, if a service provider is discriminating on a protected characteristic, that is covered, I agree.

I see you're changing up your emojis. It's good to shake things up.

Are you suggesting that Farage has only been around since last year? I'm afraid that's not correct, he's been boring on for a few decades.

The reason Robinson's beliefs aren't protected is because the EA states that a belief must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not affect other people’s fundamental rights.

I'm afraid that persecuting minorites is not considered worthy of respect and does affect people's fundamental rights.

I await your next choice of emoji with baited breath.

Well quite. What upside was there for Hawksmoor? They want as much business as possible and want to protect that.

Political beliefs can be protected, as a philosophical belief, under the characteristic of "Religion and belief", but many (and very likely the vast majority) are not.

To be protected, a belief must be genuinely held, must concern and weighty and substantial aspect of human life, must be cogent, serious, cohesive and important, must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and must not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Robinson's Islamophobia, for example, will fall afoul of the last two arms (and courts have ruled as much in other cases, not featuring Robinson).

But again, unless their behaviour within the premises was unruly the comfort of staff or other patrons being in proximity to the group is not reason to ask them to leave.

You're wrong, it depends on the beliefs.

Not because of political beliefs - sure. Pull the other one. He's not been legally discriminated against but he's been done over. I hope the company has a solid policy on all circumstances under which staff might feel threatened. I can guess it will be quite selective.

So if a forty year old white, straight male who identifies as male wants to join a pony club for girls of 10-14 and he's told no, on account of being a forty year old man, that's two of his 5 protected characteristics (race, age, sex, sexuality, gender identity) used as a reason to exclude him. (Race and age.)

You are saying anyone can be excluded or refused service from any private business or establishment for any reason at all, except if they are being excluded specifically because of a protected characteristic.

If all protected characteristics are equal in law as you say, and the only difference is that some demographics with certain characteristics are more likely to be discriminated against than others, then I guess he's joining the pony club if he wants to and he'll go to court to fight anyone who says otherwise and he'll win.

No, they have a civil law right to refuse service for anything. It can't be for discriminatory reasons but this wasn't. Staff and customers didn't want to be near him.