How far can protected beliefs go?

[lechiffre55]

Asking for cool heads on this one please because it uses a current sensitive topic for an example.
e.g. who you would you vote for threads ususally degenerate quickly to tribal mud slinging. Only an xxxxx would vote yyyyy!

I'm very happy where all the recent tribunal results regarding discrimination and harassment against gender critical beliefs have gone. I hope the trend continues with those still in progress. I have my fingers crossed in particular for Roz after hearing the witnesses from ERCC.
However as with free speech it matters most that you support it not when you agree but when you disagree.
How does this result affect how you feel about the tribunal process? It's certainly making me have a think about how the whole process works and my own views.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13049063/Zionist-tribunal-University-Bristol-professor-Islamophobia.html

I try as much as possible to matintain internal views that are consistent as much as possible if you substitute in different people. So for eample I want all people to have equal rights, including those I disagree with. If you read what this guy believes I think his views are quite extreme, but a tribunal has ruled his belief is legally protected in just the same way that gender critical belief is.
I'm only using this as an example. I don't want a who's right and who's wrong thread about a decades old conflict. I'm more asking for are there any beliefs that shouldn't be protected in law? Who gets to choose which beliefs should and shouldn't be protected.
How can large organisations avoid breaking the protected beliefs discrimination laws if they have a large number of people with vastly differing views, especially when some of those strongly held beliefs are in direct diametric conflict with other equally strongly held beliefs? It seems almost impossible to me.

If I was working in HR right now I would probably bury my head in the sand and hope it all goes away.

Veganism is an interesting one. So at present if a child wants to try meat off another child's plate in my primary school, they can if they are vegan but can't if they don't eat meat or certain meats due to religious beliefs. I can see there will be a time when veganism is considered as a religion in terms of protected beliefs.

What is extreme about Andrew Miller's views? Zionism is a political position. Its like saying you can't be anti communist or capitalist.

It's an interesting question, OP, and the David Miller case is a particularly difficult one. I think we all agree that free speech has limits and, for me, there's a big difference in saying someone is entitled to hold, and express antisemitic beliefs, and saying that a university lecturer can express those beliefs when teaching students.

What did he say that was antisemitic?

The Grainger test sets out to answer this from a legal point of view.
(i) The belief must be genuinely held.
(ii) It must be a belief and not, as in McClintock, an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
(iii) It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
(v) It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others (paragraph 36 of Campbell and paragraph 23 of Williamson).

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2009/0219_09_0311.html

Although still leaving open the question of what is 'worthy of respect', but 'not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others' are the key aspects.

I find this really interesting. I’m an atheist and a vegan. I was vegetarian when my children were young, but my view was although they didn’t eat meat at home if they wanted to try it elsewhere that was fine. Similarly, if they’d expressed any interest in following a religion that would be fine. But it wasn’t something we did at home.

I think there has actually been a case of vegan beliefs going to an employment tribunal though.

I agree, and yet I disagree. When you say "free speech has limits" I find every attempt to define those limits ends working out badly. Don't forget for the gender identity crowd gender critical beliefs fall outside those limits for free speech. For some people our GC beliefs fall into exactly the same bucket as some very extreme views that we may be very uncomfortable with.
What happens when a pedophile gets a tribunal ruling in their favour?
For me the best ( least worse ) option tends to be when the view is not illegal. So you can't for instance believe that a person or persons should be illegally killed or worse.

When I started this thread I asked for consideration that the example I gave was not the core subject of debate. I gave that as an example because it is an example of the same legal protections that gender critical beliefs have been recognised under. Someone people may agree, some may disagree. If you want to debate the specifics of that example I would ask you start a seperate thread please.

OP, I don't think you can dictate the way this thread is going to go - that's not how internet threads work. You drew attention to the David Miller case by giving it prominence in your OP. The Miller case is an excellent example of the collision of rights between people who hold diametrically opposed views, and it's hard to see how we can have that discussion without referencing it.

But to answer your question - " I'm more asking for are there any beliefs that shouldn't be protected in law? Who gets to choose which beliefs should and shouldn't be protected" - then it's very difficult.

To be protected, a belief must meet the Grainger test: (i) The belief must be genuinely held. (ii) It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available. (iii) It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour. (iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. (v) It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Personally, I think quite a lot of beliefs fall short of meeting the Grainger test. If someone's belief is that, for example, black people are less intelligent than whites, that wouldn't meet Grainger. But there must be other beliefs that are less clear-cut.

There is a big difference between criticising the state of Israel robustly and being anti-semitic.

I think there is a lot of genuine anti-semitism around these days but someone disagreeing with the existence of the state of Israel where it is and with all the political issues around that is not the same as making Jewish people unsafe.

He possibly got a bit close to the line of professional behaviour in talking about Jewish students on campus as he did as he is in the position of power there... I think he probably had a professional duty to treat Jewish students with respect and not make their lives more difficult (using them as 'pawns' in his arguments to use his own words against him).. However, Bristol Uni clearly didn't make their case that he impacted students in this way.

I personally do not agree with his views but he should be free to speak his views and have them challenged. I think there is a separate question of professional obligations and standards of behaviour but some vague 'we don't like your opinions and that makes us feel unsafe' is not the same as actually being unsafe is it? Jews in Israel who are attacked by Hamas are actually unsafe, some professor having biased (but legal) opinions is not the same.

He apparently has said Jewish people aren't discriminated against, which imo is obvious rubbish and he should be free to say something so obviously untrue so we can all point out how untrue and ridiculous and biased and lacking in evidence that statement is.

What happens when a pedophile gets a tribunal ruling in their favour?

That is a belief that would fail Grainger 5.

there's a big difference in saying someone is entitled to hold, and express antisemitic beliefs, and saying that a university lecturer can express those beliefs when teaching students.

I dont think there should be an outright prohibition on expressing beliefs (to an extent, even beliefs that fail Grainger 5). Especially in a university, where student are meant to be learning to examine and test ideas.

To take a less controversial example, there are 2 broad theories about how evolution progresses (not the Darwinian or genetic mechanisms, but in simple terms whether it is a steady change or happens in steps; 'evolution by creeps' vs 'evolution by jerks' as my professor put it). I had a lecturer who was quite clear that he subscribed to the former - but he gave the arguments for and against both as even-handedly as he could. If he'd mocked and marked down people who wrote essays coming down on the other side and made them stand in the corner that would have been clearly wrong, but I think expressing his own stance was not only allowable but important.

He accused Jewish students at Bristol University of being pawns of the Israeli government, on the basis of their religion, claimed Jewish charities in Britain were secretly acting as Zionist lobbying groups, claimed that the war in the Ukraine is a secret Zionist attempt to destroy Russia…

Because I am feeling lazy here is a link to an interesting Wikipedia article...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Essentially it is about the difficulty of tolerating the free speech of those who, were they to gain power, would not tolerate yours.

There's also a nice bit about ingroup and outgroup tendancies. I.e. we like to hear the speech of those we agree with.

@pronounsbundlebundle I like what you're saying about professional standards and power dynamics. And also about the difference between fear and danger.

I despise Miller and he has said some clearly anti-Semitic things. I’m not sure where I stand on anti-Zionism specifically and whether it should be protected. On the one hand I think, it’s just a political opinion like any other. On the other i think, if the only people who don’t have a right to self-determination are the Jews, is it actually inherently racist?

In general my concern is that the ‘worthy of respect’ clause is interpreted based on the judge’s own feelings/worldview.

Personally I am of the view that all speech is ok as long as it does not incite violence, but obviously it becomes more difficult in a workplace, where a lot will depend on organisational values.

For balance here is an example of a case where the claimant’s beliefs (ethno nationalism) were not considered to be protected under the EA due to failing the 5th Grainger criteria. The article also references the ECHR and the limitations placed on free speech.

https://lawandreligionuk.com/2023/05/22/is-ethnocentric-nationalism-protected-by-s-10-of-the-equality-act-cave/

Obviously free speech and which beliefs are protected are different things. My own view is that free speech should cover nearly all speech but that should not necessarily mean that speech is protected. I believe it is unambiguously right that white nationalism and Nazism are not protected speech. I imagine that 99% of people living in the UK today are pretty much in agreement that these beliefs are not worthy of respect.

Really interesting thanks

There's a big difference in saying someone is entitled to hold, and express antisemitic beliefs, and saying that a university lecturer can express those beliefs when teaching students ... some of whom may be Jewish.

It isn't only that the antisemitism example is controversial, it's that antisemitism directly harms Jewish people.

In the evolution example, nobody is harmed by either of those progress theories.

The thing with religious tolerance is that it is expected that you are able to cope with those beliefs existing and being practiced by others, you can tolerate and civilly cope with others living by those beliefs and having facilities for the practice of those beliefs, and they neither try to enforce your participation in practicing that belief and you do not try to enforce their abandonment of that belief in order to practice your own beliefs.

It is the impact on others. And about it not being appropriate or possible in a society for one group to be regarding others as heretics and wanting to smite them.

Thank you for the Grainger test references. It looked pretty strong to me initially, but as with all these things it looks to be this is the best we can come up with. I think I can see where holes might appear.

e.g. ii It must be a belief and not, as in McClintock, an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.

I think a lot of people's views are formed from biased sources. This forum itself I think is a biased source. But it seems to me most people get most of their information from biased sources in this online age. The TV news channels are also heavily biased both in the US - Fox, CNN, and the UK - BBC, GB News. I would say a person has to go out of their way to consume unbiased information. All of that biased information shapes a person's preception of the world around them. A belief almost must in my opinion be shaped from the present state of information available. Take gender criticallity. I wouldn't be so gender critical if it wasn't for "no debate", the subterfuge involved in capturing institutions behind the scenes, violence and intimidation, the detrimental effect of women's rights e.g. single sex spaces and fair competition in sport, and last but certainly not least the medicalisation of kids. Without all that having happened I might not be gender critical at all.

Having your own beliefs which you can express freely is one thing.

Being employed in a particular role, especially when that involves young people is different. Usually the contract of employment will be clear about you creating an environment where different views can be discussed and that your role is to facilitate this safely. Normally it is clear that you cannot espouse your own belief system to the students - your job is usually to enable other views to be heard equally.

I think it is a matter for his employers if he is breaking his contact, depending on his contractual terms.

For me the best ( least worse ) option tends to be when the view is not illegal. So you can't for instance believe that a person or persons should be illegally killed or worse.

I don't understand what this means. You can have an opinion about what could or should happen, but that's not a belief system in itself. Nor is being a paedophile.

All sorts of people who do or have done all sorts of things also have belief systems (or are atheists, which is also protected).

It doesn't mean anything they do is a consequence of that belief system.

The anti-zionism case is interesting and I admit I don't know enough about as to what is anti-zionism that isn't anti-Semitic. So a learning opportunity for me much as I abhor reading about the current violence that everyone seems powerless to stop.

For some people our GC beliefs fall into exactly the same bucket as some very extreme views that we may be very uncomfortable with.

And "fall into same bucket" is meaningless here. If people want to lump sets of differing beliefs together then that's their problem. Like saying all vegans are anti-vaxxers - the issue is with the person incorrectly determining that there is such a "bucket".

But antisemitism would presumably fail Grainger 5, and I don't agree that Grainger 5 'fails' should have unlimited expression and only said there shouldn't be a blanket ban, because there is the potential in a small number of cases for expression to be useful.

The evolution example was extending the discussion to Grainger compliant views, because surprisingly large numbers of people think lecturers should express no personal beliefs, and certainly no unpopular beliefs even if they are perfectly valid. And you can't run a university like that.