Right to criticise Islam protected underneath British legislation after court docket battle | UK | News | EUROtoday

The proper to criticise Islam is protected underneath equality legislation, a choose has dominated. Patrick Lee, 61, appeared at an employment tribunal listening to after a four-year disciplinary course of resulting from his posts on X that criticised Islam.

He had known as the Prophet Mohammed a “monster”, and referred to Islam as “backward”, “a con trick”, “a dangerous cult”, “the root of the evil”, however the court docket has dominated that “Islam-critical” beliefs are protected underneath the Equality Act 2010. Mr Lee, who’s an atheist, can have a ultimate listening to in February that can resolve whether or not his posts on X have been an expression of his protected perception and whether or not a regulator discriminated in opposition to him.

He was discovered responsible of misconduct by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) final April over 42 of his posts, which they mentioned have been “either offensive or inflammatory or both”, and that 29 have been “designed to demean or insult Muslims”.

Mr Lee was banned from the physique after being a member for 34 years and needed to pay almost £23,000 in prices.

The IFoA argued that his views weren’t a genuinely held philosophical perception underneath part 10 of the Equality Act, and that his “true belief” was “substantially more extreme” than pleaded.

His posts have been first reported in September 2020, when an unnamed govt officer on the IFoA flagged his social media for investigation. The UK charity Islamophobia Response Unit additionally submitted an exterior criticism a month later.

The unique tribunal discovered his posts breached the “Integrity principle” of the Actuaries’ Code, as he had “failed to show respect for others… in circumstances where [his] conduct could reasonably be considered to reflect upon the reputation of the actuarial profession as a whole”.

One submit from May 2020 that was flagged within the IFoA criticism mentioned: “I would agree that the Islamic Republic is as dangerous as a virus & more evil: the virus is not sentient. But isn’t #Islam the real cause? Is a religion whose founder (according to its own sacred texts) ordered people to be *tortured to death* not evil? #SpeakUpAboutEvil.”

He was responding to Masih Alinejad, an Iranian activist who had known as Tehran’s regime “a bigger virus” than Covid.

The atheist argued that his view “that Islam, particularly in a traditional form – rather than a reformed, modernised, moderate and Westernised form – is problematic and deserving of criticism” was a protected philosophical perception underneath the Equality Act.

Mr Lee claimed: “I’m not saying that every one Muslims behave in a specific manner, in no way. I’m saying that, with out reform, Islam is incompatible, in some ways, with numerous our human rights,” speaking to the Telegraph.

He argued his belief was based on “reasoned analysis rather than prejudice”, and highlighted his charitable donations that would have helped predominantly Muslim communities, such as donating around £30,000 to Iran Aid in the 1990s and 2000s.

Employment tribunal judge David Khan agreed with Mr Lee in a written judgment on Monday, writing that Mr Lee “is (and was at all relevant times) critical of certain Islamic doctrines and practices, and not to individual followers of Islam or to the Islamic faith/religion at large”.

His barrister, Jon Holbrook, acting pro bono, argued that he had “beliefs that some could take into account ‘offensive and abhorrent’” but they “don’t ‘on any view’ search to destroy the rights” of Muslims. He mentioned “Islam-critical” was “a reasonable and non-pejorative description” of his consumer’s perception.

It is the primary time a court docket has dominated that “Islam-critical” beliefs are protected underneath the Equality Act 2010.

The ruling comes as ministers are contemplating a reformed definition of ‘anti-Muslim hate’ which is predicted to interchange the time period ‘Islamophobia’.

While his perception was deemed certified for cover, a ultimate seven-day listening to in February will decide whether or not his posts have been an acceptable manifestation of that perception.

The choose mentioned: “However, I do not find that these tweets and the pleaded belief are mutually exclusive. Nor incompatible.

“I find that the claimant’s evidence in relation to these tweets, that he was inveighing against the offending doctrines and practices because they continued to be treated as authentic and officially sanctioned by Islamic leaders, was not inconsistent with the pleaded belief.”

A spokesman for the IFoA mentioned: “Under its Royal Charter, the IFoA has a responsibility to regulate the actuarial profession in the public interest.

“The IFoA’s independent disciplinary process operates to ensure that the public has confidence in the work of actuaries and that the reputation of the actuarial profession is safeguarded.

“We acknowledge the decision of the employment tribunal at this preliminary hearing but are unable to comment further while proceedings remain ongoing.”