Criticism of Islam is a protected belief

[theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15272771/Criticism-Islam-ruled-legally-protected-belief-man-banned-fined-thousands-pounds-social-media-posts.html

I wasn't able to find the judgment. There'll be a hearing in February but it's not clear to me whether claimant's beliefs have already been tested for Grainger compliance. Either way, the tribunal will (also) have to address objectionable manifestation (Bananarama doctrine).

I've raised it here because of the parallels with Forstater. It's a constant refrain of TRAs that permitting Forstater belief is tantamount to attacking GR as a protected characteristic. They do not understand secularism (or the SC ruling).

Of course the situation is not the same insofar as Islam has not been written into our law and Muslims don't expect the rest of us to follow its rules.

Article 9, anyone?

But secular does not mean empirically based. We still enforce a morality system in secular life.

Yes, empiricism alone is not enough to devise a morally 'correct' governance. That task has vexed philosophers for millennia and also always involves natural human instincts, for good or ill.

But, in a secular society, there is no role in the process for non-empirical beliefs - metaphysics, magic, supernatural beings, gender identity theory, Lysenkoism, the withering away of the state, etc, etc. Article 9 ECHR specifically forbids the state to impose such beliefs.

Of course, empiricism is a belief too, but what Article 9 boils down to in this instance is that the state can't stop you from believing in stupid empirically unevidenceable things if you absolutely insist.

Yes, empiricism alone is not enough to devise a morally 'correct' governance.

(hand shoots up)

"Whose morality ?"

(waits for answer)

But, in a secular society, there is no role in the process for non-empirical beliefs - metaphysics, magic, supernatural beings, gender identity theory, Lysenkoism, the withering away of the state, etc, etc. Article 9 ECHR specifically forbids the state to impose such beliefs.

And yet (to pick an example) we allow a dangerous drug to be free advertised and sold whilst at the same time locking up people for making and selling drugs.

That's just someones attitude baked into law. same as a religious belief.

Which dangerous drug? There are strict laws around the sale and advertising of drugs that do not seem to be being upheld.

There is a set of people who seem to think that everything is subject to scientific proof. They don't, for example, understand how historical proofs are made and try and subject historical statements to a scientific model, which is ridiculous. Richard Dawkins himself, in the past, has been guilty of this.

I think perhaps people don't learn enough about how we know things. It seems like it should be quite a basic topic, particularly for anyone going on to higher education.

That's just someones attitude baked into law. same as a religious belief.
What? It's gone through a democratic process. Some religious beliefs also become law eg thou shalt not kill.
Secular is just a method for living in plural multi faith/belief societies allowing freedom of thought and belief within a balance of the common good. Everyone gets to express their beliefs.
Humanism is a belief system so is veganism. Both protected by the law.

Where do you get his idea that secularism has anything to do with prioritising emperically based beliefs?

Secularism is about the state not adhering to one particular religious worldview and imposing it formally. I'd add, in modern times, that will necessarily also include non-religious worldviews, totalizing perspectives like Marxism, or even logical positivism which is where you get the elevation of empiricism as the only real knowledge.

This is still never going to result in a society that doesn't fundamentally reflect the beliefs, of all kinds, of the voting citizens. The point is that it is the people and their beliefs that determine, and to some extent negotiate, the worldviews of the society, rather than state institutions imposing them.

Yes.

Look at something like assisted death. People have all kinds of reasons for thinking it is a good or bad idea, and are totally within their rights as citizens to vote, lobby, etc, on those principles.

Similarly, if a movement arose that said that people unable to work, maybe due to age, or infirmity, or infants, were no longer fully human and could be discarded by society, and most people came to believe it, it would become reflected in the law in all likelihood.

I'm not sure how anyone defends the idea that only religions have "belief systems."

Nicotine? Caffeine (ld50 is 150-200 mg/kg I think). Alcohol & Sugar (some people could argue).
Define drug.

All it needs is a charismatic leader and an unquestioning populace. Limit education, stir in a bit of superstition. Jobs a good'un.*

Apologies for a less intellectual approach than pp who have given me a fascinating rabbit hole to scurry down at my leisure.

I should add, a contented populace can be complacent but a stressed populace can be leveraged to action.imo of course.

I should add, a contented populace can be complacent but a stressed populace can be leveraged to action.imo of course.
Exactly. Can I pinch that.

Not sure education is a protection against it though.

Education is an interesting word isn't it? To some people it means teaching what to think, to others it means teaching how to think.
When everyone is on the same page there is perhaps less strife, but complacency has it's dangers.

I dont think we're in fundamental disagreement. Building a good society is hard, everyone contributes in accordance with their beliefs (and opinions), and no-one can force others to share their own beliefs. But beliefs based on observable fact are much more widely shared than those based on a magical doctrine (eg a giant supernatural being will be angry if you don’t do certain things, a man can really be a woman#) so we don't make laws based on the latter, because that would be forced belief for everyone else.

#Oh wait. We do.

Thread not relevant to sex and gender discussions- a board created to siloise a particular issue amid much faff- can't we now keep it for its intended purpose?

The parallels between laws to restrict criticism of Islam and gender ideology have been repeatedly pointed out.

The February decision will be relevant to Forstater and Higgs, and to the correct application of Article 9 to the GRA and EA. We can't really police where else the conversation goes!

Yes! Indeed, the far-left activists who cheered when the slightest suspicion of anti-trans sentiment was enough to have someone fired, cancelled or recorded in the Orwellian "non-crime hate incident" database, then realised that the same illiberal laws were being used against them when 80-year old grannies were being arrested for protesting on Palestine.

Do you remember the case of the guy whose tweet about being born a mammal but identifying as fish was recorded as a non-crime hate incident? He went to court and won, with the Judge giving a dressing down to the police, because the police criteria for non-crime hate incident were so loose as to stifle legitimate free speech.

No one has a right not be offended, criticised, and ridiculed.

You can always start your own thread.
I think freedom of speech and the attempt to control who can say what is central to the opposition of gender ideology and misogyny in general.
I'm not keen on silos.

Agreed, for obvious reasons those I know who are most critical of Islam are themselves of Muslim-heritage.

I also know a few Iranian female refugees, as well as a man who was disillusioned after belonging to a mosque that was supporting terrorism.

I'm not sure it occurs to some of the left that someone can be brown, grow up in a religion and then become critical, or even leave that religion!

Do you remember when Mariam Namazie was disinvited by a university? Because an Iranian woman talking about how the Iranian theocracy oppresses women is... offensive. Of course, right? https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2017/02/43-percent-of-universities-restrict-speech-that-might-offend-religious-people

Similarly, if a movement arose that said that people unable to work, maybe due to age, or infirmity, or infants, were no longer fully human and could be discarded by society, and most people came to believe it, it would become reflected in the law in all likelihood.

It did arise. Almost in living memory.

Quite! When Ayan Hirsi Ali cricticised Islam ( based on a lifetime's experience) she was issued with a fatwah and had to go into hiding.

Really, that’s so awful. I don’t know her work but I have seen posters on here criticise it and her. I wonder how they can endorse this.