In a landmark Employment Tribunal case, a judge has ruled that criticism of Islam is protected under the Equality Act. The Sunday Telegraph has more.
Patrick Lee, 61, was found guilty of misconduct by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) last April over posts on X. After a four-year disciplinary process, he was banned from the professional body and ordered to pay nearly £23,000 in costs.
The trade body ruled that 42 of his posts that criticised Islam, including calling the Prophet Mohammed a “monster”, were “either offensive or inflammatory or both”, adding that 29 were “designed to demean or insult Muslims”.
But following an Employment Tribunal hearing, the actuary has won legal protection for his beliefs.
It is the first time a court has ruled that “Islam-critical” beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Previous claimants had been told such views were not “worthy of respect in a democracy”.
The decision follows a 2021 ruling that Maya Forstater’s gender-critical beliefs were protected under the same law.
Ms Forstater later won her discrimination claim and her case has reshaped public debate on gender ideology. Mr Lee, whose final hearing in February will decide whether his posts on X were an expression of his protected belief and whether the regulator discriminated against him, thinks his case could have a similar impact.
He told the Sunday Telegraph: “I hope that it will embolden other people to speak up, and it will stop employers and regulators from gagging people when they’re making valid criticisms of Islam.”
On Saturday night, Lord Young of Acton, the head of the Free Speech Union, said the decision was an “important victory”.
“This landmark judgment will make it much harder for the Government to roll out an official, state-approved definition of ‘Islamophobia’,” he said.
I flesh out that point in a comment piece beneath the news story. The gist of my argument is as follows:
After this judgment, how can the Government hope to prohibit “Islamophobia” or “anti-Muslim hatred”, given that its definition, however tightly drawn, is bound to include describing Islam as “backward”, “a con trick”, “a dangerous cult”, “the root of the evil” and calling the Prophet Mohammed a “monster”?
Lee was banned from membership of the IFoA for two years and ordered to pay the regulator’s costs of £23,000 for saying all of those things after it received a complaint from, among others, a charity calling itself the Islamophobia Response Unit. Yet the Employment Tribunal has ruled that his “Islamic-critical” beliefs are protected.
Admittedly, he has not yet won outright. In the next stage of the case – which the Free Speech Union is funding – the Tribunal will have to decide whether Lee’s manifestation of his protected “Islamic-critical” beliefs, i.e. the tweets in which he expressed them, was appropriate. But the judge in the first stage has indicated he thinks they were.
He said: “I do not find that these tweets and the pleaded belief are mutually exclusive. Nor incompatible.”
Another reason for hesitating before declaring victory is that judgments in the Employment Tribunal do not set binding legal precedents. The reason the verdict in Maya Forstater’s case had such far-reaching consequences is because she won in the Employment Appeals Tribunal, having initially lost in the lower court.
Nevertheless, Judge Khan’s decision can be cited in other Employment Tribunal cases and the fact that Lee’s “Islamic-critical” beliefs have been given protected status will be persuasive. In future, anyone penalised for saying something “Islamophobic” – whether by a regulator, an employer or a university – will be able to point to this judgment. That renders the Government’s efforts to roll out an official definition of “Islamophobia” largely pointless.
Worth reading both articles in full.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply