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?

Yes I am baffled as to why you'd need to criticise any religion at work. I think that criticising one religion for something like homophobia while ignoring that all religions are homophobic speaks of a bias against Islam.

I think you should call out the homophobia and others forms of abuse and discrimination by your brothers in the church (and your sisters when your brothers permit them to have a significant role) before you start on your Islamic cousins. Look in before you look out.

Why are you talking about Christians when I am talking about church goers?

Anyone can say they are a Christian or C of E, but theyve never actually worshipped collectively or attended a church for anything other than a wedding, baptism or funeral. The surveys that count are by those who regularly worship. That's where you get to know what is really being taught at these places.

That just shows how little you understand. Christianity or Christian denominations. Many other denominations perform same sex marriages, including Quakers, Methodists and unitarians.

Evangelicals of any denomination would not disown a homosexual child either; to them being a homosexual is considered a burden as you must remain celibate as sex (including heterosexual sex) outside marriage is a sin and marriage is between a man and a woman. And they recognise everyone sins in some way. But to be a celibate homosexual is not an issue.

There seems a persistent belief amongst certain posters that the UK is America on the other side of the Atlantic. The American right wing fundamentalists Christian sects barely exist here.

?? Re- read my post. I made it clear I was talking about churchgoers. I say in the last sentence that I’m talking about ‘practicing Christians’ ie churchgoers.

Where are you based and which denominations are you talking about?

I’m not disputing that but in this thread you have argued in favour of a ban of criticising such homophobia in Islam and as supported by Muslims.

Is there a reason why you don’t understand this point?

Are there any other influential religious leaders working with the government to ban criticism of their homophobia? If so, feel free to raise that too.

I have been regularly to church for most of my life including childhood. There was never ANY homophobic teaching and the openly gay members of the congregation were fully accepted.

I have no idea what sort of minority group you are talking about.

Quakers make up about 200k of Christians around the world.

Methodists changed their stance in 2024 but some places like Ireland still only reocngise heterosexual marriage. Evangelicals are also split on homosexuality. Just because you know a few individuals that have nuanced views, it doesn't take away from the fact that the religion itself is homophobic. Christianity is inherently homophobic, like Islam and Judaism.

That's great in your little church. That's not The Church though, by any means.

I haven't argued in favour of a ban..I said that I believe someone who has had to go to court to argue for their right to publicly express criticism of Islam will likely discriminate against people they perceive as Muslims. The same goes for someone who thinks badly of Christianity interviewing someone with a big cross around the neck or a nun. I don't think you can feel that strongly about it without bias affecting your judgement and performance overall.

You are rapidly changing your stance on the idea that the majority of Christians would disown a homosexual child.

Methodists voted to allow same sex marriage in 2021. Not allowing same sex marriage is a long way from disowning a child for being homosexual.

or Muslims being discriminatory towards Jews and Christians? Or trans people being discriminatory towards anyone who recognises you can’t change sex?

To bring my usual two French cents to the discussion and notably for the benefit of @JadeSquid a 2020 survey in France found that 38% of Muslims put religious law above the law of the French Republic, against 15% of Catholics. In other words, 15% of Catholics might find it OK to perpetrate homophobic acts (thankfully prohibited by French law) vs 38% of Muslims and a very worrying 57% of young Muslims.

The difference in numbers is simply staggering, and you can't just wave it away by saying "oh but all religions are homophobic". And on top of that, Sharia law dictates that you should stone people who have homosexual relationships, whereas Catholic law says they should be rejected from the Church and frowned upon (which I absolutely disagree with, to be clear) . Not the same punishment by far.

Is there a reason why you are unable to grasp the point? I can’t really explain it in any more simple terms.

You know Catholic countries do this

It really isn't.

I can't grasp a point that singles out Islam (or any one religion) as more problematic than others.

I think you should call out the homophobia and others forms of abuse and discrimination by your brothers in the church (and your sisters when your brothers permit them to have a significant role) before you start on your Islamic cousins. Look in before you look out.

Thing is, in the UK we can concern ourselves with whatever we like and many of us who are brought up Christian have done plenty of inwards looking over the years. It is pretty clear to me that Christianity has modernised to the extent that it fits pretty well into modern Britain. It helps that that there is no imperative to be a Christian, no punishment for leaving the faith, no consequences for mocking or criticising the church. Women and girls are not treated as subordinate. Women in my town are not even permitted to worship in the local mosque because there is not enough space. Films aren’t being cancelled or fans banned from football matches due to the fear of violence from Christian protesters. Those criticising Christianity don’t have to go into hiding through fear of being attacked or worse. None of this can be said about Islam and we have to be able to freely say so without worrying that the state will punish us.

Is there a Muslim or Jewish person who has gone to court because they want the right to criticise other religions on SM?

I think that's your bias showing.

Have they been discriminated against for doing so? If you can do something freely, possible weekly by calling for the death of Jews as you march down the street, then why would you go to court?

Can you do that?

On what point am I biased?

This perhaps?

https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/news/campaign-launched-to-open-british-mosques-to-women/

Or this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-62523259.amp

Or this?

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/79986/pdf/

There's no point arguing about whether criticism of a religion is always discrimination against its adherents, because the law already says otherwise: that Venn diagram is not a circle.

Both the critic and the religionist have the right to express their beliefs, and not be discriminated against because of them, as long as the beliefs are Grainger compliant and the manner of expression not objectionable - two specific legal tests which will have been applied in this case, by the end of the upcoming hearing in February. This is interesting because the government wants to 'ban islamophobia' - a superfluous measure in my view - which would entail defining it.

Ironic. Consider your own bias here.

I'm sorry, do what? (I genuinely don't get what you are trying to say).