In what might come as a surprise to some, and I would suggest is a counter to a broad narrative, an Employment Tribunal (a form of Labour Court) in England has upheld the principle that criticism of ‘unreformed’ Islam is legally protected. The Tribunal considered a preliminary point as to whether or not the Claimant (Plaintiff in old, sound [ đ ] money) could in principle bring a claim on the basis that he held a belief that had sufficient cogency as to be worthy of respect in a democratic society. As far as can be discerned from the judgment, there was an issue (which is very much now an issue for a determination on the merits at a later hearing) as to whether the employer was taking action against the Claimant (the circumstances of which we know nothing) because of his manifestation of his belief, (which is permissible) rather than because he simply held those beliefs, which is not permissible; e.g. a nurse who is a devout Christian being sacked for being a Christian rather than specifically, sacked for e.g. saying to a seriously-ill patient ‘Convert or face Hell-fire soon!‘ which could well be a manifestation of a belief at which offence might be taken.
The issue that the Tribunal considered is set out in the judgment (linked above) as follows:
âThe belief that Islam, particularly in a traditional form â rather than a reformed, modernised, moderate and Westernised form â is problematic and deserving of criticism in so far as it fails:
(i) To recognise a separation between religion (sacred) and politics (secular) and/or the Church and state,
(ii) To value and respect fundamental human rights such as:
âą freedom of conscience and of speech,
âą to eschew and condemn violence in the name of religion (Islam),
âą to treat and respect women and girls equally when compared to men and boys.â
The Claimant appears to have been ‘hauled up’ by his employer over his Twitter/X usage, there is reference to a file of 141 pages showing his Twitter feed, which the employer sought (at this stage) to use to argue that his belief in the need for a ‘reformation’ of ‘unreformed Islam’ was not genuinely held, i.e. that he was using this ‘belief’ as a shield for views that would not be protected. That is yet to be determined, if it is continued with by the employer.
The main points of the Claimant’s case were the following which he considered problematic were noted at paragraph 13 in the judgment:
‘In his witness statement [C/14], the Claimant has cited the following
âtraditional and unreformed Islamic belief[s]â that are that are incompatible with âWestern valuesâ in that they:
(i) advocate or justify violence against non-believers or apostates;
(ii) promote unequal legal status for women;
(iii) call for the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy or homosexuality;
(iv) reject the separation of religion and state, and seek to impose religious law;
(v) promote antisemitism or hatred towards groups including reformed Muslims;
(vi) condone child marriage;
(vii) permit forms of slavery or indentured servitude;
(viii) justify domestic violence, including wife-beating and female genital mutilation (âFGMâ).’
It is important to note here that the Claimant’s belief isn’t about hostility towards Muslims as such, but to the holding and promotion of the ‘unreformed’ version of Islam that he is objecting to.
The issue for the Tribunal hearing the final case is summed up at paragraph 17:
‘The degree to which the Claimant will be able to establish that these tweets were a manifestation of the pleaded belief or that the Respondent will be able to show that these were inappropriate manifestations of, or otherwise separable from, the belief, are matters which fall to be decided at the final hearing.’
I.e. was the Claimant criticism of the ‘unreformed’ Islam that he weighs in against inappropriate, which takes into account the position that he held in the employer that he worked or works for.
There is nothing in this judgment that surprises me, it seems to be a legally-sound decision that the principle of criticising a belief on the basis of its incompatibility with ‘Western values’ (whatever they might be) is one where not only is it lawful, but an employer who acts against an employee for doing so (unless the manifestation is inappropriate) is itself acting unlawfully. Clearly, given that Courts are holding that such expression is legally-protected in principle, any notion that such comments are criminally unlawful are unfounded so any police action arising from those Tweets would be wholly unlawful.
Along with other economists Milton Friedman argued that an employer should be allowed to end the employment of someone for any reason – unless (unless) there was a contract-of-employment (which he recommended – that Milton Friedman recommended contracts of employment is often left out of discussion of this matter) which laid down protections.
The difficulty is that an employer may be pressured by outside forces to dismiss an employee – “sack this Islamophobe or we will destroy your business – by picketing your premises, and so on”. Also there may be no individual employer as such (Milton Friedman, indeed just about all economists, thought in terms of one individual employing another individual – which is normally NOT the case now) – most people today are employed by either government or corporate bureaucracies (and contrary to the late Milton Friedman, there is NOW little difference between a government and a corporate bureaucracy – indeed they are often NOW joined at the hip) whose hiring-and-firing practices have little to do with merit – and a lot to do with box ticking exercises, which have been ruthlessly exploited by certain powers (hello BlackRock – and other such) with a political and cultural (NOT commercial) agenda. Someone like Larry Fink (head of Black Rock and the World Economic Forum) had demanded, for years, that people are hired and fired on the basis of the race, sex, sexuality – and yes OPINIONS (not merit).
The left noticed this weakness of the “Corporate model” quite some time ago. Corporations used to act “as if” they operated in a free market economy and sought to maximize long term profits – by such things as hiring on the basis of merit. But with so many shares “managed” by a few entities, and the supply of Credit Money in the hands of the government supported Credit Bubble banks, the left worked out how Corporations (Corporate bureaucracies – dominated by such things as “Human Resources” departments) could be used to push the political and cultural agenda of the left – and this really went into overdrive in the 21st century (yes, before anyone points it out, long after Milton Friedman stopped writing about economics – so he can NOT be blamed for not writing about things that had NOT happened yet).
In a free market economy where lending was entirely from Real Savings (the actual sacrifice of consumption) of cash (Commodity – for example gold or silver) money, rather than Credit Money created from nothing and dished out to the politically connected – entities such as BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, and the Credit Bubble banks would NOT have a stranglehold on Western economies – but that is a discussion for another time.
As for the present state of the law of England – Mr Ed (as one would expect) states it very well.
My fear is that the laws are soon to be changed – to make any opposition to Islam, even OUTSIDE working hours (not at work – not bothering people about their religion whilst at work) a matter than can end employment – and, indeed, be punished in other ways.
Islam is the teachings and personal example (actions – the deeds) of Mohammed (various spellings) – which, Muslims believe, were commanded by God (Allah) Himself.
It can not be “reformed” – as Mohammed stated that his teachings came from God (Allah) and that his actions (his killings, enslaving, and so on) were ordered by God – and were a model of conduct for his followers, for all time.
Mohammed was NOT some gentle hippy sitting under a tree preaching peace and love. Mohammed as a political and military leader, one of genius, who created a political and legal system meant to dominate the world (NOT a tiny bit of the world – as with the claim that Judaism makes to the “Holy Land” – all of the world) and rule. A political and legal system that, according to Mohammed, was personally ordered by God. And any person who claimed to be a Muslim, but did NOT side with other Muslims in the conquest of Infidels, was a “hypocrite” who, according to Mohammed, should be executed.
If a Christian does certain bad things one can say “would Jesus have done that – would Jesus have approved of what you are doing?”
If a Buddhist does certain bad things one can say “would the Buddha have done that – would he have approved of what you are doing?”
But if one tries this with a follower of Islam, someone who sincerely follows the teachings and personal example (actions – deeds) of Mohammed – the response is simple.
“YES Mohammed would have done this, indeed he did do it – repeatedly, and YES Mohammed would have approved of what I am doing – indeed he (Mohammed – following the commands of Allah) commanded his followers to do these things, till the end of time”.
There is no “reformed, modernised, moderate and Westernised form” of Islam and even if there was, it would be an Islamic heresy.
If the powers that be wanted to prevent rising anti-semitism, maybe not importing vast hordes of Muslims would be a good start?
I recall about twenty years ago it was fashionable to call for a ‘reformation’ in islam akin to the Christian one to counter jihadism. I think that was based on a misunderstanding of the Protestant Reformation. The complaints of islamic radicals like Bin Laden and co that many Muslims, such as the Gulf monarchies or Arab nationalists like Saddam Hussein or Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, had made too many compromises with worldly luxury and sin and this corrupted islam, seem not a million miles away from Martin Luther railing against a corrupted Catholic church that had compromised too much with the profane and corrupted by it. Admittedly my own Catholic biases may be showing here, and I’m not saying all contemporary Protestants are like islamic fundamentalists, but I think Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas or Khomeini in the Shia world etc are the Islamic reformation. I don’t think it’s any surprise they came after the failure of things like Arab nationalism, the Iranian white revolution, or the dismal attempts to impose communism in places like Afghanistan and Yemen.
Even if “reformed” it begs the question of whether ANY religion, institution, person etc is above criticism and personal opinion.