Criticism of Islam as a Protected Belief

Mr Lee was banned from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) due to social media posts critical of Islam, some of which the body felt were “designed to demean or insult Muslims”. But the tribunal found that Mr Lee’s beliefs met the threshold of being protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010. The Telegraph says that similar claims had previously failed as “claimants had been told such views were not “worthy of respect in a democracy”. 

 

So what does this mean for employers? 

 

 

In disputes involving protected beliefs, the tribunal will first consider whether the claimant’s views are protected. If they are, the tribunal will then consider whether the behaviour in question was a manifestation of those beliefs, whether the employer interfered with the activity and whether the interference was justified. 

 

The tribunal has so far found that Mr Lee’s beliefs reached the threshold to be protected philosophical beliefs. This is the only issue that has been decided in this case so far. Later hearings will decide whether his posts were a manifestation of these beliefs, whether the dismissal interfered with these beliefs and if so, whether this was justified. That is when it will be decided whether Mr Lee has been discriminated against. 

 

 

As with all such cases, the finding is specific to the facts of this case. Mr Lee was critical of certain Islamic doctrines and practices, rather than the whole religion or individual followers, and the tribunal accepted his submission that his views were based on analytics of Islamic texts, not prejudice. Employees who seek to rely on protected beliefs to criticise Islam will still have to prove that their individual views meet the threshold of protected beliefs. 

 

Beliefs will not be protected if they are unworthy of respect or incompatible with the fundamental rights of others. This case shows that criticisms of religion are not automatically unworthy of respect, even if some people find them offensive. The tribunal accepted that Mr Lee’s beliefs did not seek to destroy the rights of Muslims. 

 

 

It isn't possible to extract from this case a principle that can be applied universally. Employers should treat each instance with care and make sure that the facts and circumstances are considered properly. Context and the facts are crucial. 

 

Employers should always be very careful when responding to disputes about deeply held beliefs, as there is a risk of discriminating against the employee for their philosophical beliefs. Defending such a claim can be costly and time consuming for employers, even if their defence is ultimately successful. Ideally, employers should take legal advice about individual case, as subtle factors can affect the outcome. It is helpful for employers to understand the factors that determine whether a belief may be protected and consider these objectively – leaving aside their own feelings about the beliefs. 

 

With social media posts, employers should consider whether the posts are connected to work. If not, employer may have difficulty justifying any disciplinary action - even if it objects to the opinions expressed publicly. 

 

It seems that Mr Lee was not bringing his claim as an employee but against a membership organisation. Had he voiced similar statements in the workplace, his beliefs would still be protected beliefs, and he would be legally protected in holding them. Whether he was justified in expressing those beliefs to co-workers would depend on the context. 

 

Employers may choose to implement policies that prevent discussion of religion in the workplace, in order to create a neutral environment. However, the employer would need to be able to justify this policy and show that any interference was proportionate.