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?

This is not the right direction. Islamophobia is absolutely rife in the western hemisphere and there should be increased legal implications to combat it. You should not have the right to make fun of/insult the sincerely held religious and moral convictions of people from minority backgrounds who are already vulnerable to exploitation amongst the majority population.

We are heading for another dark age at this rate.

Yes, so if he had, say, threatened not to take on Muslims as clients, it would have been OK for his professional body to deregister him for discrimination. But his opinions as such were none of their business.

I assume you don’t live in the UK. Of course criticism of Christianity is a protected belief. You can see examples from of everywhere. And thankfully you can be fully critical of Christianity without risk of cancellation or death threats.

Yes exactly. And this certainly doesn’t get the term phobia.

You should not have the right to make fun of/insult the sincerely held religious and moral convictions of people from minority backgrounds who are already vulnerable to exploitation amongst the majority population.

We absolutely should and do have that right. Bad beliefs should be challenged, not nervously skirted around because held by a minority.

Whether it's rude or unpleasant is a different issue.

Whether it might provoke violence from that minority is a different issue.

Whether criticism turns into something else, that is actually a crime, or at least destroys a potential claim of protected belief, is a different issue.

I think the existing protections for Muslims are just fine.

Strange that you mention the dark ages when Islam colonised large areas, including Spain and caused the death of millions and enslaved millions more, and where Christians and Jews had to pay a tax in order to be allowed to live. If we cannot criticise Islam then we are heading into a new dark age.

To me you should be allowed to criticise or disagree with anything, as long as you are not abusive or bullying.

Absolutely! What sort of religious faith requires insulation from unbelief? That doesn’t sound like a faith at all!

A faith that has no faith in itself?

🤔

Nope, curtailing people’s right to criticise a religion is the dark age practice.

and there is much to criticise in the way Islam is practiced by many. It largely manifests with misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism. a report from M15 yesterday said 75% of activity/terror plots were by Islamic extremists. We absolutely must be able to question and challenge it.

That isn’t true. Most terrorist suspects are from an ideology known as ‘alt-right’, which is an off shoot of far right ideology that worships a guy called Fore Chan. It is far more dangerous than Islam.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/35681-now-it-is-such-a-bizarrely-improbable-coincidence-that-anything

You’re joking right?!

Stop making stuff up.

But this suggests that the process isn’t a punishment in itself if we can’t rely on the common sense and prioritisation of freedom of speech by those in the frontline responding to complaints - the police and low level prosecutorial authorities. I can’t imagine it’s much fun to be questioned by police, detained, arrested or have to pay legal fees just to be exonerated of all offences.

I have little faith that any discretion will be exercised in favour of women complaining of
unequal treatment or abuse promoted by patriarchal religions or pointing out patterns of behaviour for safeguarding etc where the relevant religious authorities or followers complain about racism or Islamophobia. Surely we’re all aware of the very different reactions to accusations of racism etc over misogyny/ sexism. The former is always treated as more serious in legal and moral terms - presumably as it affects the only people who really count - men!

I think it is worth remembering that part of the problem now is how more recently thanks to laws around hate speech, the weaponising of supposed shared values by politicians to get cheap votes at the expense of shared values is what is happening now.

Tooo many employers, let alone the police, are jumping in thinking that what is a personal opinion expressed outloud is intended as an insult or threat.

As I posted earlier

criticism of Judaism (or any religion) can be a protected "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act 2010, provided it meets specific legal criteria and does not cross the line into unlawful discrimination, harassment, or hate speech.

So why is anyone asking inane questions about does it apply to christianity?

The problem used to be thought a matter of "taste" eg Mary Whitehouse vs the BBC.

Now everyone is is caught up in the whole hate speech mentality.

You really do talk a load of old nonsense.

I suggest you go and look at the MI5 website and find out some actual information rather than making stuff up.

Here you go, some evening reading for you.

Islamist terrorism
Islamist terrorism is the most significant terrorist threat to the UK by volume.
Islamist terrorists are generally driven by an extreme interpretation of Islam or perceived grievances against ‘the West’, particularly those propagated by terrorist groups such as Daesh (also referred to as ISIL, ISIS or the Islamic State) or al-Qaeda. Much of the volume of the threat is from individuals who have self-radicalised, seeking to carry out attacks using unsophisticated or low-sophistication methodologies. Generally, individuals will decide themselves to conduct an attack, rather than the attack being directed or controlled by a terrorist group.
This can make it harder to identify terrorist activity.
There also remains an enduring threat from overseas terrorist groups which seek to inspire, support or enable attacks and which retain an intent to conduct sophisticated attacks.

www.mi5.gov.uk/what-we-do/countering-terrorism

I think they are just going by posts. Parody maybe.

The problem I have with this is that I suspect someone who feels so strongly about Religion or Culture X will not, say, hire someone who is obviously from Religion or Culture X.

Like this man, would be assume that a person who is visibly Muslim just isn't the right fit? Or would he assume they have values that are against the ethos of the profession/company?

I can't see a world where you want the legal right to be able to criticise a religion but won't be discriminatory against its followers.

Don’t be ridiculous. I’m an atheist but don’t practice workplace discrimination against people with faiths.

I think there are particular issues with the current manifestation of Islam in much of the world. Doesn’t mean I have a problem with my Muslim family.

Did you also go to court over the issue?

This was discussed at the hearing: the judge was satisfied that the claimant did not have negative views about Muslims, only about Islam. This makes sense. They are the people who suffer the most from its harmful ideas.

Religious belief is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act so it is already unlawful to discriminate against people on grounds of religion.

It was such a relief to see this man won his appeal also. His conviction and the reason the judge gave for it was utterly chilling.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v7wlj3pr2o.amp