Hah! I knew exactly where you were! I work at the hospital near there and cycle along that cobbledy side street every day! Parts of Bristol are pretty - parts are very scuzzy.
Perhaps I have written what I suspect you imply.Is the presenter conning you? My assessment. He is a very intelligent man working in a field that requires intelligence. His field, i.e. the courts, insist on the correct use of words whereas common usage or understanding of words change over time but the courts rely on exact meanings. Why then does this man use the word lawful which is a common law term when he describes a statute which is legal thing. I therefore believe that he is intentionally conning you , at best just to ease his conscience or at worst to justify working in a field that pays him huge sums to re-present people who are suffering injustice. This is not some esoteric argument over the meaning of words. This man is supporting a very evil system. A system that hides our most basic lawful protection, viz habeas corpus. The Supreme court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus should tale precedence over any other business. It should be free. A judge should be available 24/7./365. Now the legal organisation in which this man works has a condition of his working in the courts that he has a sworn duty to comply with their rules, imposes conditions for those seeking a writ of habeas corpus. It has to be in writing. There is a fee to be paid. In practice it is not available 24/7/365 because county courts direct one to the Royal Courts Of Justice in London. They are only open between 10 and 3am Monday to Friday. I know that I'm wasting my time writing this but I have to do this because unlike the presenter I cannot lie to myself. Who is the stupid man? I think I am.
As a person who has worked on roads I believe that there was plenty of room for those cars to give you a better view of the drivers side. I suppose I could be sacked for saying that.
Interesting stuff 👍 if you have more on this topic, I'd listen. Intersection between politics and protected belief, maybe. Just the details of some cases would be interesting enough, and help give a better idea of how these things are decided.
If a child believes something just because they have been told to believe it repeatedly does this count as a true belief ? Echoing someone else's belief doesn't seem like a true belief.
Well said. Oppression is a nasty part of mass indoctrination...yet that child may be able to break away as they grow, and then form their own genuine belief.
An interesting one is a belief that censorship is bad being a protective belief. For instance I was once told that I was entitled to believe that censorship was a bad thing but that I wasn’t okay to express that belief. Now that’s not an opinion that’s a value judgement about what kind of society we want to live in. I certainly think it’s a weighty matter and it’s a coherently expressed one. But you will be surprised how many places will try to ban you for saying something that they find offensive shouldn’t be censored.
I'd say the hardest thing about legislating for belief is that it's sometimes hard to tell if that belief is genuine. Is there a scorecard or check sheet to tell if you really, really do believe in something?
As mentioned, they can look at this bit in the 'coherent' limb. So respondents can argue that the relevant person doesn't actually behave in a way consistent with their expressed belief. The tribunal doesn't demand perfection though. So you wouldn't lose protection as a christian just because you skipped church every now and then.
Is pastafarianism a protected belief? We might argue "no" because it is unlikely to be seriously held But We might argue "yes" because it is actually an underlying disagreement with all organised religions expressed by living your life as a satire against them (For this reason it does get seriously discussed at multi faith theological conferences)
I think legislation is deliberately ambiguous. And then people have to bring civil claims through the court in order for the court to deliberate and and gradually make the law more specific the more people conflict.
Thank you for this vid! A law that discounts beliefs and positions based on available scientific evidence substantiated over years, or solidly documented and evidenced historical events, needs repeal. Fact based, and innate biological and physical realities being muddled up with faiths, ideologies, and fantasies (and currently fetishes) is ridiculous, mind blowing we have such a situation. Anyhoo we do discriminate, we must discriminate... Just don't express the reasons😂
Hi Al. Delusion is defined as _"a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions"_ With reference to mental health does this not raise questions about antipsychotic medications being forced on mental health patients, who may be sectioned under mental health legislation and lose their freedom they do not comply? Ia the act of forced medication denying delusional mental health patients their beliefs?
Delusions can be in eye of beholder. Think of someone with a mental health diagnosis who dreamed of getting into university and succeeded. The mental health professionals considered their dream to be a delusion as they did not believe it was possible. Yet the patient succeeded in fulfilling their dream despite the "support" given by mental health professionals.
@@everyonecancraft70 that's the point I was getting at. A doctors opinion is precisely that, opinion. Not belief. If a schizophrenic has the delusion they have been to the moon, the truly believe with every fibre they have been to the moon.
Very informative as usual Al. I've been a union rep and had cases of people victimised for union activity. There is a lot of confusion over whether trade unionism is a protected belief or is it in fact protected under specific TU legislation? Maybe a topic for another video?
Ah, I'm getting nostalgic for when I did 'Individual employment law' and 'collective employment law'. My knowledge is now 30 years out of date. But there are additional protections for trade union activity. But you'll know more about that than me. I'd love to hear any comments you have. Ideally in screenplay format; about 12 minutes long.
@@phill6859I think the OP was standing up for free speech, in the sense of the freedom to say that someone else's freedom should be taken away. I suspect their head might actually explode for real if they encountered Popper's Tolerance Paradox. Anyway, that's just my vaguely interesting opinion ;)
REALLY interesting!.... as a vegan..I had faith you'd make it to the end despite being besieged by people in cars!VERY interesting information!thanks for taking your life in your hands.I'm at Bristol uni btw!❤
@@artmedialawhi Alan, love the channel, and sorry to go off topic. I'm seizing this opportunity to ask you to look into something and maybe do a vid about it. A few months ago you referred to the "Lawrence test" regarding racism in defamation cases (I think it was the Laurence Fox case). Now the "Lawrence Test" sounds almost identical to the so-called "MacPherson Principle", but that was a direction to the Met Police to get their house in order after the mess-ups in the Steven Lawrence case. It's subsequently been clarified (I'm not sure if it was by MacPherson himself) that the "MacPherson Principle" applies only to the recording and investigation of a possible crime, and was never intended to be used in court. The "Lawrence test" (I think you said it was in the bench book) sounds worryingly like the MacP might have been sneaked into law. To be clear I fully support the MacP when used for it's original purpose, but I think it should be limited to that. Anything further would set a very dangerous precedent. For those who don't know, the MacP principle is (not verbatim but close) "an incident should be treated as racist if it is perceived as racist by the victim, or by any other person, whether present or not". Thanks, hope you see this comment :)
It seems that intelligence is not a protected characteristic - all said and done for intelligent people being willing to change our mind on the basis of new information is a fundamental part of that honest intelligence!
Very interesting as usual! On a different subject, not sure if copyright is your area, but I often find audiobooks or BBC plays on UA-cam and wonder how people can put them on without breaching copyright law, wondered if you could do an episode about that?
If it's just a straight upload that is a copyright infringement. You only have fair dealing/fair use protection if you add some value. Say for example critiquing or commentating on the work. But even then the use has to be proportionate. Spending half an hour analysing a few minutes worth of extracts might be protected. Uploading a 2 hour programme and just saying 'i like this' probably wouldn't be.
Forgive my naivety, I really struggle with this topic. How can you hold a sincere belief if you can't defend it with current day evidence and be open to changing it when proven otherwise? I'm thinking recent cases with Maya Forstater and also Allison Bailey relied heavily on lack of evidence for a disbelief (from what I understand, please correct me!) Also, I appreciate religion is covered separately but atheism comes under the same bracket for me (remember my non clarity). If suddenly a God appeared before me and I had compelling evidence then I'd believe in its existence. ...edit for clarity; so my "belief" in atheism is purely evidence (or lack thereof) based so seemingly would _not_ be protected. So my questions is, a belief that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it to exist is something I cannot wrap my head around being not protected. All very confusing but great video, thank you!
Maya Forstater definitely had far too much evidence for her belief. I wonder if the first judge had ruled that she didn't have a protected belief because what she said was unquestionably true if she and her legal team would have just given up. Instead the judge said her belief was unreasonable in British society and it was overturned. There is no way evidence is going to turn up and change Maya's mind though.
@@fburton8 great question. For me, I'd say it fails the last test, worthy of respect, because it's based on conspiracy and it's been disapproved many times with... Evidence. All incredibly confusing!
@@mandowarrior123 The 2000 years matters. No court is ever going to say that's it's been settled that Christ died on the cross and rose again. Whether you believe he did or he didn't everyone sees it as not the job of our courts to say.
If somebody insists that their pronoun is "they", can I insist that I refer to them as "it" because I believe "they" is an exclusively plural pronoun and there is only one of it?
Only if you’re willing to fight every English teacher and everyone who paid any attention to English grammar and know’s that ‘they’ also applies to singular individuals where gender is not known or is not relevant to the discussion.
@@StephenBoothUKwhen I was at school, back in the last century, we had it hammered into us that the correct singular pronoun where the gender was unknown was “he”, because - and I quote - “masculine gender takes precedence”. One would hope that they’ve moved on a bit since then. Still, each to his own, I suppose!
@@mattundercoat when I was in school (1974-1989) I was taught that the correct singular pronoun where gender was not known or relevant, in particular where the referred person could be any gender, is ‘they’. The masculine taking precedence I’ve only encountered in languages where nouns for inanimate objects are gendered.
Fred Hoyle (and John Elliot) - “A for Andromeda” on BBC TV in 1961 in 7 episodes. Remade in 2006 as a 85 minute film for BBC 4. Sequel and conclusion, The Andromeda Breakthrough BBC TV series of 1962, in 6 episodes, written by Fred Hoyle and John Elliot. I have watched all of the above at the time of the original broadcasts. (A personal thought and belief - Infinitely better than todays “reality Tv tripe”
And just in case I might appear smug based on my last comment - I eat meat, but I won't accept any of it going to waste. If veggies go to waste, we have a compost heap, so they just make more veggies. But meat? No. I consider myself an omnivore but still respect the animal that lost its life to feed me (and my family)
One problem is that many people seem to hold deeply rooted epistemological beliefs, which means that they don't agree on what constitutes evidence or facts. Discrimination is probably not based on those beliefs but opinions that are based on them.
Could not resist Alan , the psycho bable scene in 'a few good men', "it doesnt matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove" ua-cam.com/video/6ummgnvQchM/v-deo.html
I'm a bit confused about criterion number 1. You give a very convincing argument for why it's wrong ... and yet it is set out in the Grainger case, which you use as a guide. I believe Grainger was a 2010 appeal tribunal case, so has the argument you articulate for why it's wrong subsequently been upheld by a (higher) court?
Thanks. Presumably the "not based on evidence" test could be subject to such challenge too? (Odd, come to think of it, that a belief that climate change exists was held to be protected on application of that criterion!)
So what happens when two diametrically opposed beliefs are held to both be protected. And to force someone to do a thing to not discriminate against the other, causes them to be discriminated against themselves.
That's when it can be a nightmare trying to find a solution that satisfies both. So if someone didn't want to use particular pronouns they might be asked to use the person's actual name.
@@artmedialawpersonally flowsnake thinks that being forced to use flowsnake's name instead of a pronoun would be a punishment in itself. "So flowsnake wishes me to refer to flowsnake as flowsnake, but what right does flowsnake have to tell me how to refer to flowsnake. I think flowsnake is being very selective about how flowsnake sees personal freedom, flowsnake is clearly trying to restrict my freedom by making flowsnake and people like flowsnake the centre of attention." Seems like a war of attrition, eventually they gonna say "ok, please can we just do the pronouns, pretty please?" Lol ;)
@flowsnake8732 some people are just assholes and you can usually find some other way to remove assholes from a job. I am willing to cater to all the bigots who say they identify as a table or toaster as well.
@@phill6859Phil I would be more than happy to do the same. Serve food off the top of the former, and plug the latter into the mains and shove slices of bread into it. Also my kids haven't grown out of sitting on tables yet, so that one best avoid coming round to ours ;)
The courts are a closed shop which require those who work there to swear allegiance to company rules. i.e. statutes. Read what I wrote above . Research it and try and prove me wrong.Is the presenter conning you? My assessment. He is a very intelligent man working in a field that requires intelligence. His field, i.e. the courts, insist on the correct use of words whereas common usage or understanding of words change over time but the courts rely on exact meanings. Why then does this man use the word lawful which is a common law term when he describes a statute which is legal thing. I therefore believe that he is intentionally conning you , at best just to ease his conscience or at worst to justify working in a field that pays him huge sums to re-present people who are suffering injustice. This is not some esoteric argument over the meaning of words. This man is supporting a very evil system. A system that hides our most basic lawful protection, viz habeas corpus. The Supreme court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus should tale precedence over any other business. It should be free. A judge should be available 24/7./365. Now the legal organisation in which this man works has a condition of his working in the courts that he has a sworn duty to comply with their rules, imposes conditions for those seeking a writ of habeas corpus. It has to be in writing. There is a fee to be paid. In practice it is not available 24/7/365 because county courts direct one to the Royal Courts Of Justice in London. They are only open between 10 and 3am Monday to Friday. I know that I'm wasting my time writing this but I have to do this because unlike the presenter I cannot lie to myself. Who is the stupid man? I think I am.
But they would benefit from what the union fought for and won... or do JWs happily accept lower pay, poorer conditions and being fired for no good reason?
@@randommusic4567 In the days of closed shops, you had to join a trade union unless you provided a religious exemption certificate - and you were then expected to donate your "union dues" to a charity acceptable to you and the trade union in question. Until the time of Mrs Thatcher, quite a lot of employers only allowed you to work for them if you joined the designated trade union, and thus contributed to Labour Party funds.
That's harsh and counterproductive. You won't convince anyone by ridiculing their beliefs, and by and large, you'll be arguing with deluded and gullible people far less intelligent than yourself. You might convince them with gentle reasoning, but all you'll do by ridicule is make them feel stupid and persecuted, and entrench their beliefs. It's a recipe for division and hatred in society. Mind you, if someone insists on letting their dog sit on my sofa, or tries to convince me of the virtues of Roman Catholicism... it's sometimes hard to remember not to ridicule them.
In the context of the law it means something different. It means you can´t be sacked for espousing the belief, or refused service at a pub, for example. I.e it means that if you discover your employee doesn´t believe transwomen are women you can´t sack them, or vice-versa, you can´t sack someone for being pro-trans. It means you can´t sack someone for being a Vegan.
But surely your belief that the belief is ridiculous is a protected belief? At least potentially. In this context protect means you can’t sack people or refuse them service for their belief not that you can’t say that they’re wrong
I've a question regarding religion. What happens when a religion's fundamental core beliefs not extending the same rights to non-believers as believers? Or for a more extreme example include slavery of non-believers? Surely that fails the last test. You did say it was different for religions. How silly can religious beliefs get before the law says no?
It depends what you mean. Do you mean criminal law, employment law, etc? If you look up there are answers to these questions. If you take a crazy example, i.e believing in Aztec religion, it´s not illegal to believe Aztec religion is true, but it is illegal to perform human sacrifices, even if the person does it willingly (it would probably count as assisted suicide). However, if you say replaced the human with a doll, or some other sort of symbolic sacrifice, then there would be no issue legally.
@@Minimmalmythicist Following the example of Aztec religion, what if a follower called for human sacrifice? Would that be illegal (under criminal law)?
@@MadTamB It depends if you discuss it in the abstract, or if you incite someone to do a specific act. If you say "Human sacrifice should be legal", it´s an abhorrent view but it´s not illegal to hold it. If you tell someone "go ahead and kidnap MR x to sacrifice him" then yes that would clearly be illega.
The other thing that needs to be brought up in this conversation is it´s rare for religious believers to follow every word of their text literally and there are so many competing interpretations. I.e the Old Testament says some pretty rough stuff, yet few Christians or Jews actually believe that these days. Same with most Muslims these days, the majority in the UK believe Christians and Jews should have the same rights as themselves.
@@Minimmalmythicist But there are people who do believe every word of their sacred texts, quite literally. If someone does and tells people to go out and (let's keep going with the Aztec) sacrifice someone and someone does, then are they liable?
@@zalzalahbuttsaab 5. "It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society. Not be incompatible with human dignity & not conflict with the fundamental rights of others" If you think for one second that islam meets this requirement then i can only assume that you have not read the Quran or Hadiths.
@yorkiemike Projected beliefs are a ridiculous idea hands down, but maybe more ridiculous is comparing Christianity vs Islam for compatibility with the modern free thinking democratic world.
"protected belief" test in Granger (5 limbs): 1: belief must be genuinely held 2: must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available 3: must be a belief based on a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behavior 4: must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance 5: must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity & not conflict with fundamental rights of others. Pretty inconsistent and incoherent, for example "worthy of respect" and "cohesion" largely contradicts "not based on evidence", and is hugely subjective. Like many, I think beliefs not based on evidence are generally not worthy of respect. Are the delusions of a psychotic paranoid schizophrenic, protected beliefs in employment? They qualify as genuine, irrational, cogent and serious.
i think it would be interesting to see you discuss this with Danny Shine as a practical application - not that i hold his views but he advocates publicly not to have children and that humans should decline - he’s had a couple of run ins with police and would be fun to see you two dissect his position against these tests and see how it stacks up. at least it would avoid the typical gender / religion case examples.
I had to google him, but turns out I have encountered him. He once turned up at an animal rights march and followed alongside most of the way doing his human extinction bit. But yes, would be nice to have a non religion/gender example!
You just ran head into the ban on Roman Catholic prayer in particular areas, though. Ultimately, it comes down to "as long as it doesn't frighten the horses" despite this being a major doctrine of a major faith. There's a strop going on between Islington's Muslims and a Free Church, where the edifice was invaded by an Islamic radical engaged in assault, threatening the minister's wife, who's Jewish. Nobody's protecting that religion either.
Is the presenter conning you? My assessment. He is a very intelligent man working in a field that requires intelligence. His field, i.e. the courts, insist on the correct use of words whereas common usage or understanding of words change over time but the courts rely on exact meanings. Why then does this man use the word lawful which is a common law term when he describes a statute which is legal thing. I therefore believe that he is intentionally conning you , at best just to ease his conscience or at worst to justify working in a field that pays him huge sums to re-present people who are suffering injustice. This is not some esoteric argument over the meaning of words. This man is supporting a very evil system. A system that hides our most basic lawful protection, viz habeas corpus. The Supreme court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus should tale precedence over any other business. It should be free. A judge should be available 24/7./365. Now the legal organisation in which this man works has a condition of his working in the courts that he has a sworn duty to comply with their rules, imposes conditions for those seeking a writ of habeas corpus. It has to be in writing. There is a fee to be paid. In practice it is not available 24/7/365 because county courts direct one to the Royal Courts Of Justice in London. They are only open between 10 and 3am Monday to Friday. I know that I'm wasting my time writing this but I have to do this because unlike the presenter I cannot lie to myself. Who is the stupid man? I think I am.
@@johntimbrell I'm probably more intelligent. I'm a giver-Gifted everyday genius declining with age from a 163 IQ. More practically I'm a Jurist recognised by the Belgian Supreme Court, and have served on the Beta Test panel for the Ministry of Justice's StatuteLaw database, behind legislation gov uk, and have a decent share of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. More pertinent still, it's very possible I may have been the original weirdo and misfit inspiring Dominic Cummings search for folk to run the shop in 2020: I'm a recognised Tier One world-changer and have materially improved the future for very many countries. Any individual has a viewpoint. What he's addressing is the conflict in the heart of many neurotypicals between divergent creeds and their world model, at the heart of the two-tier policing issue. Where he goes wrong is to presume Law and Justice are the same. Law is a simulacrum of Justice, a man-made model of waypoints through life designed to keep you mostly out of doing wrong: it is, however, perpetually out of date, and principles like the one being debated are an example. He's using a 5-layer Swiss Cheese model, without noticing it's protecting an Establishment creed which I reduced to status-quo. That's why I focused on a current conflict between two groups, which the Law should be reconciling but is failing to. There are a number of undeclared subtexts. Firstly, that the Law seeks not to get involved unless matters are truly intractable: arbitration and mediation are strongly preferred preliminaries. Secondly, that the intractable often arises from dogmas and creeds many have never thought through. Thirdly, that these norms are fundamental to their personae, and therefore strongly motivate their actions in a way the Law does not. We only made the theory that all adults know the Law a practical reality about 20 years ago, by making it freely accessible as I said: in fact, what's been published is the text of most Statute, in other words what the Law says, not what it means: for that we need Case Law, currently under development, and a Plain English interpreter, yet to come, so someone needing to know hyperconcepts like this get pointed in the right direction. This is the point you make about the difference between Law and reality. For myself, my diagnosed hyperperception is a manifestation in Giver-Giftedness of what was once called seer-medium skills. That involves being pointed in the right direction by the numinous, and then using my knowledge, very advanced search skills, and plain common sense, to find an answer to often very complicated issues. Part of that, you'll notice, strays onto the field of belief, in a way that is far outside the cultural norm of hatch'em match'em dispatch'em. Many will challenge me, taking the viewpoint that my Invisible Friend is a figment of an overheated imagination: how can it be, then, that the rather strategic deal which attracted Dom Cummings attention was landed because I'd become aware it would be coming my way some six months earlier, and so had spent four preparing an answer. When it landed, I simply took it off file at 0200 and between 0830 and 0900 closed it out. I was then left with making it happen: five days later the country's top technical specialist, who I hadn't talked to in fifty years, crossed my path looking for a new project. I'm a pathfinder, and so handed it off to implement.
@@batkinssmart4273 What items in my previous comment do you disagree with. Just one thing, do you think that it is a good thing that that the LEGAL civil procedure rules are contrary and UNLAWFUL to the Supreme court rules.
@@johntimbrellI don't recognise Blair's 'supreme' court. Our ultimate authority is that of our peers and their interpretation. A 'supreme' court of appointed judges tied to parliament can't decide legal matters under our law, regardless of what you call it. And our peers decide based on the king's law, which comes from his divine right to rule, whether provenance or serendipity.
With respect you are starting to understand the problem. Keep asking questions.Is the presenter conning you? My assessment. He is a very intelligent man working in a field that requires intelligence. His field, i.e. the courts, insist on the correct use of words whereas common usage or understanding of words change over time but the courts rely on exact meanings. Why then does this man use the word lawful which is a common law term when he describes a statute which is legal thing. I therefore believe that he is intentionally conning you , at best just to ease his conscience or at worst to justify working in a field that pays him huge sums to re-present people who are suffering injustice. This is not some esoteric argument over the meaning of words. This man is supporting a very evil system. A system that hides our most basic lawful protection, viz habeas corpus. The Supreme court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus should tale precedence over any other business. It should be free. A judge should be available 24/7./365. Now the legal organisation in which this man works has a condition of his working in the courts that he has a sworn duty to comply with their rules, imposes conditions for those seeking a writ of habeas corpus. It has to be in writing. There is a fee to be paid. In practice it is not available 24/7/365 because county courts direct one to the Royal Courts Of Justice in London. They are only open between 10 and 3am Monday to Friday. I know that I'm wasting my time writing this but I have to do this because unlike the presenter I cannot lie to myself. Who is the stupid man? I think I am.
Is this true, so he was just praying minding his own business? Is there anything else to the explanation, did he do it in a particular protected spot or something?
@@randommusic4567 Yes it was near an abortion clinic, but he’d been told by the police that he could pray silently. A 3 dat trial so the legal arguments must have been difficult
@@andrewgilbertson5356 so probably hard to prove in a court of law , but it would seem likely that his presence was likely to intimidate, shame or otherwise harass people who are probably having one of the worst days of their lives. Even if not ultimately illegal, it seems very crass and unbecoming. I imagine the argument would be that they are not policing his thoughts, but his actions of being there at that time. After all surely you can pray for someone's salvation or eternal destruction from anywhere
I believe that I'm creative in a technical field and I have little time for people who fail in the one or the other if they do not appreciate what they lack. So far, I haven't gotten myself into trouble with the law. There aint no evidence there.
Does this apply only to enployment law? If not I wonder whether, if I consistently parked on double yellow lines on the basis that I believed they protected my car from theft, I could get away with it? (Probably not, 'though it does seem to fulfil all the criteria for a protected belief outlined here.) If anyone's prepared to give it a try, please let us know the outcome!
That would come up against the manifestation limitations. Like you could say you believe there's no such thing as private property, but that wouldn't amount to a defence to theft.
Most people's beliefs are pretty ridiculous if you don't hold them. Provided they don't inflict them on me that's fine, but what conspiracy theories which often seem to be sincerely held?
If you are discriminated against for a trivial belief (e.g. supporting a football team) then surely that is worse than being discriminated against because of something more important.
Tolerance is the most that people can expect; respect is earned, that’s a step much further. Your ideology/belief may be stupid, but in a democratic society you’re permitted to hold it. For the law to decide that I should respect it is an imposition. If you believe you were ‘born in the wrong body’ and labour under the under the delusion you’re the opposite sex (gender identity ideology) that’s your problem. The requirement that the rest of society should also subscribe to this feeling/thoughts in your head, accommodate you, and moreover agree with that delusion is overreach. Further, to make others use specific pronouns, or agree someone is the opposite sex, is compelled speech and legislating for thoughts. We’re into thoughtcrime territory here. The law is a (totalitarian) ass in this particular area; vis a vis a women compelled to refer to her rapist in court as ‘she/her’ and then require that rapist be housed in a female prison. Evidence that propagandists/extremists have too much influence in our criminal justice system.
It's sad that you can't accept difference in other people. Your belief that trans people are not genuine is your own delusion, of course, no different than believing in gods.
Well as he said manifestation is not the same as a belief so you can't be sacked for holding that belief. It is only if you break the law, then you can be rightly sacked especially if it is requirement to have clean record.
Witchcraft is a protected belief. A witch down here was the first one to register as a professional with HMRC. So she gets tax relief on cauldrons and the like,
Hoyle might yet be correct, there is a star (wandering, I think) that has been dated as older than the universe. It's most likely an error in calculation but you never know 😅. Like deployed 👍
There are two ways of measuring the age of the universe and they do not agree according to some youtube astrophysicists I have watched. We obviously do not understand and have made some wrong assumptions on which the calculations are based.
So it DOESN'T protect religious beliefs if they 'believe the bible' because it is a historical record? Most religious believers believe it's true based on evidence. It just protects feelings, not actual beliefs. 'I believe my parents' IS evidence based, even if the sources are bad.
So believing the earth is flat should be a protected belief? e.g. this is the belief of the NBA basketballer Kyrie Irving. Believing Extra Terrestrials are hiding on Planet Earth is a protected belief?
Flat Earth is an interesting one. If someone said they believed in flat earth because that was their interpretation on the bible then that might be protected. But now there's a flat earth movement that claims to be science based. So they might not be.
Thank you Alan !@@artmedialaw I agree with you. I've gone down the rabbit hole with some 'Esoterica' and the belief comes from a religious source, including e.g the Middle Earth theory.
A protected belief is a persons choice to reject a certain person for physical attributes in a personal intimate relationship the race card can’t be used to harass people calling them racist if they refuse to form a personal intimate relationship, why so many self entitled sexual predators they believe their right
Does not sound like Scientology would fit the definition. Can you explain how "does not interfere with the human rights of others" applies to a religion that wants to kill non adherents or permits its members to steal from non members?
To me the best way to improve the system would just be to say "your boss can´t sack you for your political views", in most of Europe it´s pretty much impossible to sack people for political beliefs, unless you´re an open Nazi, in the UK it´s a bit of a grey zone, if you support say the Labour party of the Tories then that probably would be an unjustifiable sacking, but if it could theoretically damage the company´s reputation, it might be possible for them to sack you. It´s a tricky one, I think there´s an aspect of whether or not your belief stops you doing certain types of work, i.e as a judge your duty is to uphold the law, whether you disagree with it or not. Likewise if you´re a very traditionalist Roman Catholic or Muslim and you work as a registry officer it doesn´t give you the right to refuse to marry gay people. Also, on the other side I definitely can see why nobody would want a holocaust denier to work for them. I wouldn´t be comfortable working with people who espouse rabid anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, that go beyond rational critique of the religion.
Yeah i think that it should be more clear cut, you should not be sacked for holding any belief As a person from a Jewish family i would even include people who dont believe the Holocaust happened (as abhorrent as i personally believe that that opinion is) The law should only get involved when a belief stops of causes someone to do something that is not in alignment with the job role they are employed as
@@FruitForBreakfast just look at far right loons online there are plenty, i.e Muslims are all in a conspiracy to undermine Western civilisation, plenty of people allege that all or most Muslims support terrorism.
@@FruitForBreakfast Plenty of people suggest Muslims have a tendency to be pedophiles, even though there´s no evidence of this, or at no greater a rate than people of any other ethnicity or religion.
@@FruitForBreakfast not that i believe it but one that i have heard is that they are trying to breed white people out of the UK Would that fit the criteria of what you are asking for
Unfortunately not, pleading not guilty and then being found guilty will result in you getting a lengthier sentence. A discount for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity, is problematic on various levels.
When is a protected belief really a truth, a fact that cannot be disputed? How does a protected belief be assigned to a fact or truth in law? I ask because sex is immutable, no one in the history of humanity has ever in reality changed the sex they were born - yet Maya Forstater won her appeal at employment tribunal in asserting that sex is immutable, no man can be a woman, was on appeal deemed 'worthy of respect in a democratic society', WORIADS, as a protected 'belief' - when isn't it a fact? Confused. Please advise.
A fact and a belief are not necessarily antonyms, indeed knowledge is often defined in psychology as "justified true belief". In the UK, both believing people can change their gender and sex and disagreeing with that view are protected under the law, they are seen as positions in a debate that aren´t extreme in and of themselves. Things aren´t protected because they´re a "fact", like being a Marxist, or a Tory, or an Anarchist are protected, even though they are mutually exclusive worldviews and it´s not impossible for them both to be right about everything. It´s more about maintaining free speech in society, than who is actually right and I agree with that. Indeed, one huge problem with the trans debate is both sides have a tendency not to listen to each other´s claims and I think more sincere honest discussion would be good.
Ms Forstater was attacking a non-existent belief: trans people don't believe in changing biological sex but in changing the social construct of gender.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx Some transpeople do believe that sex can be changed, though most don´t. Regardless, it is a protected belief, whether it is correct, or well-founded is kind of besides the point really.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx The vast majority don´t, however the operation is still oficially called a "sex change", it depends if you only count primary characteristics or secondary ones as constituting a sex change.
Great video! I am of a non-religious disposition and sincerely believe that belief in Gods by any religion is no more credible than a belief in fairies and ghosts or in the many ten-a-penny redundant Gods of ancient times. I firmly believe people should be allowed to believe in what they wish without fear or favour, but we be able to openly criticise or even ridicule the beliefs of others without being penalised by government if someone happ[ens to take offence. It seems to me that beliefs are being treated to a great extent as factual when they are patently not.
I don´t think they are, it´s just you can´t fire someone because you disagree with their religion. There´s no law saying you can´t mock religions you disagree with.
This is where the manifestation element comes in. So an employer might be able to mock religion generally when outside of work but couldn't mock an individual staff member. But then you get into issues about where does out of work conduct become relevant to in work conduct.
So is this law why a man can say he “believes” he is a woman and people who use logic and science to argue against that man being able to use a woman’s changing room for example, are not taken notice of? So the man’s “belief” takes precedence over women’s rights in all arenas such as sports, and privacy in public toilets etc?
No it's because your belief that we are not women is protected despite the huge body of science that shows we are women. If I am not a woman explain why apes when removed from their mothers and reared alone are unable to rear their offspring whilst ones who can observe their mother's can? Even if no sound can be transmitted. Please explain phantom limb syndrome without recourse to the model of a neuromatrix Because, you can't. Which is why I was born a baby girl and I will have tried to live my entire life my entire life being me. Go watch Star Trek Chain of Command and like Picard I told everyone that I only saw 4 lights not 5! and yes that I was a girl
@@firstname4337no it's your belief that has nothing to do with science. You have chosen to believe in a en wikipedia. org/wiki/Lie-to-children rather than accept a deeper truth
Not really. The reality is that cisgender women's rights are not taken away because trans women's rights are extended - they are entirely compatible. It's revealing that anti-trans activists don't apply their beliefs against trans men supposedly threatening cis men.
Generally where there's a protected belief then not holding that belief is also protected. It's not totally symmetrical though. Believing in the sanctity of life is protected, but the opposite probably wouldn't be. But both creationism and evolution are protected beliefs. Even though many creationists would say that's a faith based position but most people would probably say they believe in evolution from an empirical perspective.
I would definitely be interested in more depth on this subject, especially the difference between belief and empirical evidence in the area of an increasing cohort of men claiming they are women. E.g. if I were to state that scientifically that is impossible, would I fail that test? In addition, this seems to be one of those cases you mention where beliefs conflict, so who decides which is the more important belief? Lastly, I have read that there is a guide for courts which states that a person's preferred pronouns must be used: is that true?
You can believe it. The science as we know it right now doesn't support you, but go ahead and believe what you want after reading 'Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary' by Agustín Fuentes in Scientific American, 1/5/23.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx There might be scientists who go along with genderwoo but the science is not on their side. There are two sexes and human beings can't change sex.
@@margaretgreenwood4243 Believe what you want, but don't become a farmer. You'll have a fit when you get a freemartin... or do you believe Satan creates them?
The steady state hypothesis is like the big bang hypothesis they are different schools of thought within a paradigm of thought. The nature of science is the recocognition of the constant fight to prove a rule. We could all be living in the matrix, but that is unfalseafiable & thus is a belief not a scientific statement. A lot of the issues around sex & Gender are matters of belief. J K Rowling believes I am a man. It has no basis in society, which is why her belief is a protected belief whilst my knowledge that I was born a girl is based on hard science, it is disprovable, as it's based on how other aspects of life on this planet functions. If they fail so my hypothesis fails and visa versa. In my case my I am using how the body is aware of itself via it's nerves and this is true right across at least the animal kingdom to define Type B transexuality. And in the case of Type A transexuality how species learn and modify their behaviour to increase gene replication. This is especially true of species that must pass on knowledge of how to replicate it's genes but without any form of recognisable language. There is a third type of transexuality which an expression of Typed A & B together. And type O or ordinary i.e people without any form of transexuality. Obviously this short hand is based on the hypothesis of blood types short hand. Like everything in science, it's not exact but it's a useful day to day rule of thumb to understand gender and sex. Also known as "lies to kids" en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Lie-to-children
A useful rule of thumb to understand sex (gender is a social construct), is whether you have XX or XY chromosomes. (Rare DSDs are without the rule of thumb.) From what you say, you're chromosomes are XY and you are therefore male; that has basis in society and science. Nice try, though, with all the pseudo-scientific nonsense; sounds as though your belief would be protected as a sincerely held but irrational fantasy.
There is no such thing as a 'carnist'. Its a recently created derogatory term and used only by a minority of vegans to essentially insult dehumanise their outgroup, that being the other 99.5% of the population. Look up its origin and its common use if you don't 'believe' me. Its basically a slur, originating from a cults ingroup language.
I presume “carnivore” would be a better term. A true carnivore in human terms is someone who eats predominately animals products and excludes vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, grains etc.
@@Maugirl2so me except when I am having a cheat day with sosmix. I bludy adore sosmix. There is so much great vegan food. Veganism - really utterly wonderful people - destroying the planet!!
@@firstname4337it is a slur to discriminate against my beliefs. Vegans are mass murderers who chose water that has bleach burned to death millions of tiny animals to wash their vegetables and we minimize this by eating large mammals dispatched humanely. And they accuse us of torturing animals.
I also did the Hatchet. As part of my scientific research into old pubs and not just cause I like IPAs. Didn't have time to squeeze the Shakespeare in though.
How much of this is needed just because people behave like idiots? A friend celebrated veganism becoming a protected belief because it would require services to provide for vegan customers. Many years ago, she gave birth in hospital, things went wrong and she had to stay in a few days, with the baby in intensive care. She asked for the food to be adapted (as there was nothing vegan on the menu) and someone from the kitchen came onto the ward and yelled at her for being a nuisance. When they finally brought her food, it had dairy in and as she hadn't consumed dairy for 20+ years, she had a bad reaction and ended up even more ill than already was. If the kitchen had just done their job and not been so vile, she probably wouldn't have been moved by the decision to make it a protected belief. I feel like it's a law that's become necessary because people have been foolish in their interactions with others.
@@FruitForBreakfast agreed. I have an ex that was a chef and they often have delusions of grandeur whilst failing to have the skills to do the job, like adapting meals according to customer requirements.
This doesn't do that at all, else pork would be illegal to sell because it makes the restaurant non halal/kosher. It doesn't protect the projection of that belief at all. It only protects discrimination against holding it. For example if you are an ethical vegan but ask for meat, i have to give it to you. But i don't have to make you a special meal for your beliefs.
@@mandowarrior123 the fact that it is protected belief has been used many times to compel organisations like hospitals and schools to provide vegan meals, where they had previously refused.
As it was said in court "truth is no defence " says it all really .
That was interesting and informative and I believe it was accurate 😁
Mmm… your belief based on reasoning, so you’re nicked mate!
@@DavidMcMillan888 I have completed faith in everything Al says as a Yorkshireman. I wouldn't dream to test him 🤣
Whatever you talk about is canny - and I also love a good belligerent Yorkshire person-being from that county myself! 😅
Great vid as always!
Hah! I knew exactly where you were! I work at the hospital near there and cycle along that cobbledy side street every day! Parts of Bristol are pretty - parts are very scuzzy.
Came here for the car spotting. Didn't expect to find my view blocked in this way.
Perhaps I have written what I suspect you imply.Is the presenter conning you? My assessment. He is a very intelligent man working in a field that requires intelligence. His field, i.e. the courts, insist on the correct use of words whereas common usage or understanding of words change over time but the courts rely on exact meanings. Why then does this man use the word lawful which is a common law term when he describes a statute which is legal thing. I therefore believe that he is intentionally conning you , at best just to ease his conscience or at worst to justify working in a field that pays him huge sums to re-present people who are suffering injustice. This is not some esoteric argument over the meaning of words. This man is supporting a very evil system. A system that hides our most basic lawful protection, viz habeas corpus. The Supreme court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus should tale precedence over any other business. It should be free. A judge should be available 24/7./365. Now the legal organisation in which this man works has a condition of his working in the courts that he has a sworn duty to comply with their rules, imposes conditions for those seeking a writ of habeas corpus. It has to be in writing. There is a fee to be paid. In practice it is not available 24/7/365 because county courts direct one to the Royal Courts Of Justice in London. They are only open between 10 and 3am Monday to Friday. I know that I'm wasting my time writing this but I have to do this because unlike the presenter I cannot lie to myself. Who is the stupid man? I think I am.
As a person who has worked on roads I believe that there was plenty of room for those cars to give you a better view of the drivers side. I suppose I could be sacked for saying that.
T'Big Bang.
I clicked on this by accident but stayed to the end and subbed. Interesting and very well presented.
Thank you. I don't usually stand in a road. More often I go for the edge of cliffs.
@@artmedialaw Steep scary cliffs !
Ah the Llandoger Trow. That brings to mind a lot of student nights out that I don't remember much about 🍻
Interesting stuff 👍 if you have more on this topic, I'd listen.
Intersection between politics and protected belief, maybe. Just the details of some cases would be interesting enough, and help give a better idea of how these things are decided.
Thank you - for a good piece on this subject
If a child believes something just because they have been told to believe it repeatedly does this count as a true belief ? Echoing someone else's belief doesn't seem like a true belief.
Well said. Oppression is a nasty part of mass indoctrination...yet that child may be able to break away as they grow, and then form their own genuine belief.
That'd stop a lot of religion from being protected
Doesn't that account for almost all religious belief?
An interesting one is a belief that censorship is bad being a protective belief. For instance I was once told that I was entitled to believe that censorship was a bad thing but that I wasn’t okay to express that belief. Now that’s not an opinion that’s a value judgement about what kind of society we want to live in. I certainly think it’s a weighty matter and it’s a coherently expressed one. But you will be surprised how many places will try to ban you for saying something that they find offensive shouldn’t be censored.
Believing is one thing, acting on the belief is another.
A nightmare area… yep, that’s Bristol! Lol
My defence is 'I believe art heists are the coolest', your honour.
I'd say the hardest thing about legislating for belief is that it's sometimes hard to tell if that belief is genuine. Is there a scorecard or check sheet to tell if you really, really do believe in something?
As mentioned, they can look at this bit in the 'coherent' limb. So respondents can argue that the relevant person doesn't actually behave in a way consistent with their expressed belief. The tribunal doesn't demand perfection though. So you wouldn't lose protection as a christian just because you skipped church every now and then.
Could you possibly record a video on power of attorney?
So basically lawyers like laws that give them lots of points to argue about - more work.
This was interesting and very well explained. I guess a good defence would be a person wouldn't fit into the team dynamic.
Another video, another set of notes. Cheers Alan for all the info 🙂
Is pastafarianism a protected belief?
We might argue "no" because it is unlikely to be seriously held
But
We might argue "yes" because it is actually an underlying disagreement with all organised religions expressed by living your life as a satire against them (For this reason it does get seriously discussed at multi faith theological conferences)
I think legislation is deliberately ambiguous.
And then people have to bring civil claims through the court in order for the court to deliberate and and gradually make the law more specific the more people conflict.
My former sales director boss, very old school, neve employed anyone who wore brown shoes at the interview...!!
Seems fair
Reasonable, ditto brown suits 😂.
Probably on the basis that brown shoes are only for the country.
Thank you for this vid!
A law that discounts beliefs and positions based on available scientific evidence substantiated over years, or solidly documented and evidenced historical events, needs repeal.
Fact based, and innate biological and physical realities being muddled up with faiths, ideologies, and fantasies (and currently fetishes) is ridiculous, mind blowing we have such a situation.
Anyhoo we do discriminate, we must discriminate... Just don't express the reasons😂
Belief and 'believe' in common usage .. Which also muddles the issue.
Nicely done.
Hi Al. Delusion is defined as _"a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions"_
With reference to mental health does this not raise questions about antipsychotic medications being forced on mental health patients, who may be sectioned under mental health legislation and lose their freedom they do not comply?
Ia the act of forced medication denying delusional mental health patients their beliefs?
Delusions can be in eye of beholder. Think of someone with a mental health diagnosis who dreamed of getting into university and succeeded. The mental health professionals considered their dream to be a delusion as they did not believe it was possible. Yet the patient succeeded in fulfilling their dream despite the "support" given by mental health professionals.
@@everyonecancraft70 that's the point I was getting at. A doctors opinion is precisely that, opinion. Not belief.
If a schizophrenic has the delusion they have been to the moon, the truly believe with every fibre they have been to the moon.
They could bring a case, absolutely.
Excellent 👍
I believe i am not clever enough to understand this , is that protected ?
ooh, have a nice time in Bristol!
It seems to be how to quantify some kind of secular religion, or religion-like thing.
or a philosophical belief, i.e that eating animals is wrong, that it´s impossible to change your gender.
Very informative as usual Al. I've been a union rep and had cases of people victimised for union activity. There is a lot of confusion over whether trade unionism is a protected belief or is it in fact protected under specific TU legislation? Maybe a topic for another video?
Ah, I'm getting nostalgic for when I did 'Individual employment law' and 'collective employment law'. My knowledge is now 30 years out of date. But there are additional protections for trade union activity. But you'll know more about that than me.
I'd love to hear any comments you have. Ideally in screenplay format; about 12 minutes long.
Didn't Maya Forestater's case go to the Court of Appeal? I know she won on appeal, thank goodness 😊
No, just the EAT. They remitted back to the ET for a re-hearing having ruled she passed the Grainger test.
@@artmedialaw Ah. Thank you.
Thank goodness?
@@phill6859I think the OP was standing up for free speech, in the sense of the freedom to say that someone else's freedom should be taken away. I suspect their head might actually explode for real if they encountered Popper's Tolerance Paradox.
Anyway, that's just my vaguely interesting opinion ;)
@@flowsnake8732 want to be specific about what freedom someone wants to take away?
Neatly demonstrating why the whole 'protected classes' idea is stupid.
REALLY interesting!.... as a vegan..I had faith you'd make it to the end despite being besieged by people in cars!VERY interesting information!thanks for taking your life in your hands.I'm at Bristol uni btw!❤
So, Veganisim is your religion then, given that's what inspired your faith? Not that I'm discriminating, just asking an honest question. 😊
Ooh, you ever go in Cafe Kino?
@clairegresswell vegan..so I prayed to vegans to protect him!😂..REALLY worked!
@artmedialaw. omg small world!YES!
@@artmedialawhi Alan, love the channel, and sorry to go off topic.
I'm seizing this opportunity to ask you to look into something and maybe do a vid about it. A few months ago you referred to the "Lawrence test" regarding racism in defamation cases (I think it was the Laurence Fox case). Now the "Lawrence Test" sounds almost identical to the so-called "MacPherson Principle", but that was a direction to the Met Police to get their house in order after the mess-ups in the Steven Lawrence case.
It's subsequently been clarified (I'm not sure if it was by MacPherson himself) that the "MacPherson Principle" applies only to the recording and investigation of a possible crime, and was never intended to be used in court. The "Lawrence test" (I think you said it was in the bench book) sounds worryingly like the MacP might have been sneaked into law.
To be clear I fully support the MacP when used for it's original purpose, but I think it should be limited to that. Anything further would set a very dangerous precedent.
For those who don't know, the MacP principle is (not verbatim but close) "an incident should be treated as racist if it is perceived as racist by the victim, or by any other person, whether present or not".
Thanks, hope you see this comment :)
It seems that intelligence is not a protected characteristic - all said and done for intelligent people being willing to change our mind on the basis of new information is a fundamental part of that honest intelligence!
People will discriminate anyway. Just in a way more underhanded and harder to prove.
Very interesting as usual! On a different subject, not sure if copyright is your area, but I often find audiobooks or BBC plays on UA-cam and wonder how people can put them on without breaching copyright law, wondered if you could do an episode about that?
If it's just a straight upload that is a copyright infringement. You only have fair dealing/fair use protection if you add some value. Say for example critiquing or commentating on the work. But even then the use has to be proportionate. Spending half an hour analysing a few minutes worth of extracts might be protected. Uploading a 2 hour programme and just saying 'i like this' probably wouldn't be.
None shall pass.
I had to set up my camera on the ticket machine.
So a belief in rationality isn't protected, but the belief in the fairies at the bottom of the garden is? Truly the law is an ass?!
I’m so with you there. Just call me Titania.
It depends if you've seen them, or read about a witness. Then it's rational and evidence based, like christianity and islam and not protected.
Forgive my naivety, I really struggle with this topic. How can you hold a sincere belief if you can't defend it with current day evidence and be open to changing it when proven otherwise? I'm thinking recent cases with Maya Forstater and also Allison Bailey relied heavily on lack of evidence for a disbelief (from what I understand, please correct me!)
Also, I appreciate religion is covered separately but atheism comes under the same bracket for me (remember my non clarity). If suddenly a God appeared before me and I had compelling evidence then I'd believe in its existence. ...edit for clarity; so my "belief" in atheism is purely evidence (or lack thereof) based so seemingly would _not_ be protected. So my questions is, a belief that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it to exist is something I cannot wrap my head around being not protected.
All very confusing but great video, thank you!
Maya Forstater definitely had far too much evidence for her belief. I wonder if the first judge had ruled that she didn't have a protected belief because what she said was unquestionably true if she and her legal team would have just given up. Instead the judge said her belief was unreasonable in British society and it was overturned.
There is no way evidence is going to turn up and change Maya's mind though.
Would Flat Earthism qualify, I wonder?
@@fburton8 great question. For me, I'd say it fails the last test, worthy of respect, because it's based on conspiracy and it's been disapproved many times with... Evidence.
All incredibly confusing!
Yes, and the bible etc are historical testimony of witnesses, so the major religions wouldn't pass either.
@@mandowarrior123 The 2000 years matters. No court is ever going to say that's it's been settled that Christ died on the cross and rose again. Whether you believe he did or he didn't everyone sees it as not the job of our courts to say.
If somebody insists that their pronoun is "they", can I insist that I refer to them as "it" because I believe "they" is an exclusively plural pronoun and there is only one of it?
We are not amused.
Only if you’re willing to fight every English teacher and everyone who paid any attention to English grammar and know’s that ‘they’ also applies to singular individuals where gender is not known or is not relevant to the discussion.
@@StephenBoothUKwhen I was at school, back in the last century, we had it hammered into us that the correct singular pronoun where the gender was unknown was “he”, because - and I quote - “masculine gender takes precedence”. One would hope that they’ve moved on a bit since then. Still, each to his own, I suppose!
@@mattundercoat when I was in school (1974-1989) I was taught that the correct singular pronoun where gender was not known or relevant, in particular where the referred person could be any gender, is ‘they’. The masculine taking precedence I’ve only encountered in languages where nouns for inanimate objects are gendered.
Fred Hoyle (and John Elliot) - “A for Andromeda” on BBC TV in 1961 in 7 episodes. Remade in 2006 as a 85 minute film for BBC 4.
Sequel and conclusion, The Andromeda Breakthrough BBC TV series of 1962, in 6 episodes, written by Fred Hoyle and John Elliot. I have watched all of the above at the time of the original broadcasts. (A personal thought and belief - Infinitely better than todays “reality Tv tripe”
Original comment deleted and edited as predictive text swapped
Sequel for Sexual
May it Rust in Piss ! 🤣
Linda McCartney said it best, she wouldn’t eat anything that had a face. ( I’m not vegan, but respect peoples right to choose.)
Did she let her kids eat anything with a face though? e.g. ginger bread people?
And just in case I might appear smug based on my last comment - I eat meat, but I won't accept any of it going to waste. If veggies go to waste, we have a compost heap, so they just make more veggies. But meat? No. I consider myself an omnivore but still respect the animal that lost its life to feed me (and my family)
@@wendieking4184 oysters don't have faces. Does that mean she would eat oysters?
@@phill6859Neither do eggs - only the : "ethical" vegans avoid them.
One problem is that many people seem to hold deeply rooted epistemological beliefs, which means that they don't agree on what constitutes evidence or facts. Discrimination is probably not based on those beliefs but opinions that are based on them.
The Law trying to define Common Sense ! Good grief Haha
I think pigeons don't like law.
Could not resist Alan , the psycho bable scene in 'a few good men', "it doesnt matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove" ua-cam.com/video/6ummgnvQchM/v-deo.html
I'm a bit confused about criterion number 1. You give a very convincing argument for why it's wrong ... and yet it is set out in the Grainger case, which you use as a guide.
I believe Grainger was a 2010 appeal tribunal case, so has the argument you articulate for why it's wrong subsequently been upheld by a (higher) court?
So far these are just EAT decisions. If anything makes it to the Appeal Court we might get a better test!
Thanks. Presumably the "not based on evidence" test could be subject to such challenge too?
(Odd, come to think of it, that a belief that climate change exists was held to be protected on application of that criterion!)
I found it interesting you can't be discriminated against for breast feeding, but you can for NOT breast feediing.
As has been said many times in the past, “the law is an ass!”
Maybe the is because breastfeeding has been discriminated against, but bottle feeding never is.
So what happens when two diametrically opposed beliefs are held to both be protected. And to force someone to do a thing to not discriminate against the other, causes them to be discriminated against themselves.
That's when it can be a nightmare trying to find a solution that satisfies both. So if someone didn't want to use particular pronouns they might be asked to use the person's actual name.
@@artmedialawpersonally flowsnake thinks that being forced to use flowsnake's name instead of a pronoun would be a punishment in itself. "So flowsnake wishes me to refer to flowsnake as flowsnake, but what right does flowsnake have to tell me how to refer to flowsnake. I think flowsnake is being very selective about how flowsnake sees personal freedom, flowsnake is clearly trying to restrict my freedom by making flowsnake and people like flowsnake the centre of attention." Seems like a war of attrition, eventually they gonna say "ok, please can we just do the pronouns, pretty please?" Lol ;)
@@artmedialawThat's pretty offensive, not acknowledging someone's chosen identity through the avoidance of mentioning it.
@flowsnake8732 some people are just assholes and you can usually find some other way to remove assholes from a job.
I am willing to cater to all the bigots who say they identify as a table or toaster as well.
@@phill6859Phil I would be more than happy to do the same. Serve food off the top of the former, and plug the latter into the mains and shove slices of bread into it. Also my kids haven't grown out of sitting on tables yet, so that one best avoid coming round to ours ;)
Very informative and interesting. I remember that JWs didn't have to join a trade union due to sincerely held religious beliefs
The courts are a closed shop which require those who work there to swear allegiance to company rules. i.e. statutes. Read what I wrote above . Research it and try and prove me wrong.Is the presenter conning you? My assessment. He is a very intelligent man working in a field that requires intelligence. His field, i.e. the courts, insist on the correct use of words whereas common usage or understanding of words change over time but the courts rely on exact meanings. Why then does this man use the word lawful which is a common law term when he describes a statute which is legal thing. I therefore believe that he is intentionally conning you , at best just to ease his conscience or at worst to justify working in a field that pays him huge sums to re-present people who are suffering injustice. This is not some esoteric argument over the meaning of words. This man is supporting a very evil system. A system that hides our most basic lawful protection, viz habeas corpus. The Supreme court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus should tale precedence over any other business. It should be free. A judge should be available 24/7./365. Now the legal organisation in which this man works has a condition of his working in the courts that he has a sworn duty to comply with their rules, imposes conditions for those seeking a writ of habeas corpus. It has to be in writing. There is a fee to be paid. In practice it is not available 24/7/365 because county courts direct one to the Royal Courts Of Justice in London. They are only open between 10 and 3am Monday to Friday. I know that I'm wasting my time writing this but I have to do this because unlike the presenter I cannot lie to myself. Who is the stupid man? I think I am.
But they would benefit from what the union fought for and won... or do JWs happily accept lower pay, poorer conditions and being fired for no good reason?
Surely no one has to join a trade union, i didn't think labour had made it mandatory yet
@@randommusic4567 In the days of closed shops, you had to join a trade union unless you provided a religious exemption certificate - and you were then expected to donate your "union dues" to a charity acceptable to you and the trade union in question.
Until the time of Mrs Thatcher, quite a lot of employers only allowed you to work for them if you joined the designated trade union, and thus contributed to Labour Party funds.
@@batkinssmart4273 thank you, i did not know that, glad that was gone before my time
Down my way. Great explanation
Beliefs should never be protected. Ridiculous ideas deserve to be ridiculed.
That's harsh and counterproductive. You won't convince anyone by ridiculing their beliefs, and by and large, you'll be arguing with deluded and gullible people far less intelligent than yourself. You might convince them with gentle reasoning, but all you'll do by ridicule is make them feel stupid and persecuted, and entrench their beliefs. It's a recipe for division and hatred in society.
Mind you, if someone insists on letting their dog sit on my sofa, or tries to convince me of the virtues of Roman Catholicism... it's sometimes hard to remember not to ridicule them.
if you dont want Human Rights- go and make a sworn statement saying your forgo them. Others want them , so stop serving the totatlitarian agenda
In the context of the law it means something different. It means you can´t be sacked for espousing the belief, or refused service at a pub, for example.
I.e it means that if you discover your employee doesn´t believe transwomen are women you can´t sack them, or vice-versa, you can´t sack someone for being pro-trans.
It means you can´t sack someone for being a Vegan.
But surely your belief that the belief is ridiculous is a protected belief? At least potentially. In this context protect means you can’t sack people or refuse them service for their belief not that you can’t say that they’re wrong
@@Minimmalmythicist Unless of course their job is as a pork-pie taster?
I've a question regarding religion. What happens when a religion's fundamental core beliefs not extending the same rights to non-believers as believers? Or for a more extreme example include slavery of non-believers? Surely that fails the last test.
You did say it was different for religions.
How silly can religious beliefs get before the law says no?
It depends what you mean. Do you mean criminal law, employment law, etc? If you look up there are answers to these questions.
If you take a crazy example, i.e believing in Aztec religion, it´s not illegal to believe Aztec religion is true, but it is illegal to perform human sacrifices, even if the person does it willingly (it would probably count as assisted suicide).
However, if you say replaced the human with a doll, or some other sort of symbolic sacrifice, then there would be no issue legally.
@@Minimmalmythicist Following the example of Aztec religion, what if a follower called for human sacrifice? Would that be illegal (under criminal law)?
@@MadTamB It depends if you discuss it in the abstract, or if you incite someone to do a specific act. If you say "Human sacrifice should be legal", it´s an abhorrent view but it´s not illegal to hold it.
If you tell someone "go ahead and kidnap MR x to sacrifice him" then yes that would clearly be illega.
The other thing that needs to be brought up in this conversation is it´s rare for religious believers to follow every word of their text literally and there are so many competing interpretations.
I.e the Old Testament says some pretty rough stuff, yet few Christians or Jews actually believe that these days. Same with most Muslims these days, the majority in the UK believe Christians and Jews should have the same rights as themselves.
@@Minimmalmythicist But there are people who do believe every word of their sacred texts, quite literally. If someone does and tells people to go out and (let's keep going with the Aztec) sacrifice someone and someone does, then are they liable?
That holds true to me! Because a Belief is defined in the dictionary as a assumption based upon none empirical evidence, very interesting thanks
Except that would remove most biblical/religious beliefs as testimony and written sources are technically empirical.
@@mandowarrior123 just goes to show how screwed up the world is ❤️🤣😂🤣
So Islam most definitely cannot be a protected belief then, not according to the 5th requirement..
What makes you say that?
@@zalzalahbuttsaab 5. "It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society. Not be incompatible with human dignity & not conflict with the fundamental rights of others" If you think for one second that islam meets this requirement then i can only assume that you have not read the Quran or Hadiths.
@@JackDinn Islam meets it just as much as Christianity does, then.
@yorkiemike Projected beliefs are a ridiculous idea hands down, but maybe more ridiculous is comparing Christianity vs Islam for compatibility with the modern free thinking democratic world.
They also fail on the grounds it is based on witness testimony which makes it an incorrect but logical, empirical belief.
"protected belief" test in Granger (5 limbs):
1: belief must be genuinely held
2: must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
3: must be a belief based on a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behavior
4: must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
5: must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity & not conflict with fundamental rights of others.
Pretty inconsistent and incoherent, for example "worthy of respect" and "cohesion" largely contradicts "not based on evidence", and is hugely subjective. Like many, I think beliefs not based on evidence are generally not worthy of respect.
Are the delusions of a psychotic paranoid schizophrenic, protected beliefs in employment? They qualify as genuine, irrational, cogent and serious.
i think it would be interesting to see you discuss this with Danny Shine as a practical application - not that i hold his views but he advocates publicly not to have children and that humans should decline - he’s had a couple of run ins with police and would be fun to see you two dissect his position against these tests and see how it stacks up. at least it would avoid the typical gender / religion case examples.
I had to google him, but turns out I have encountered him. He once turned up at an animal rights march and followed alongside most of the way doing his human extinction bit.
But yes, would be nice to have a non religion/gender example!
You just ran head into the ban on Roman Catholic prayer in particular areas, though. Ultimately, it comes down to "as long as it doesn't frighten the horses" despite this being a major doctrine of a major faith.
There's a strop going on between Islington's Muslims and a Free Church, where the edifice was invaded by an Islamic radical engaged in assault, threatening the minister's wife, who's Jewish. Nobody's protecting that religion either.
Is the presenter conning you? My assessment. He is a very intelligent man working in a field that requires intelligence. His field, i.e. the courts, insist on the correct use of words whereas common usage or understanding of words change over time but the courts rely on exact meanings. Why then does this man use the word lawful which is a common law term when he describes a statute which is legal thing. I therefore believe that he is intentionally conning you , at best just to ease his conscience or at worst to justify working in a field that pays him huge sums to re-present people who are suffering injustice. This is not some esoteric argument over the meaning of words. This man is supporting a very evil system. A system that hides our most basic lawful protection, viz habeas corpus. The Supreme court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus should tale precedence over any other business. It should be free. A judge should be available 24/7./365. Now the legal organisation in which this man works has a condition of his working in the courts that he has a sworn duty to comply with their rules, imposes conditions for those seeking a writ of habeas corpus. It has to be in writing. There is a fee to be paid. In practice it is not available 24/7/365 because county courts direct one to the Royal Courts Of Justice in London. They are only open between 10 and 3am Monday to Friday. I know that I'm wasting my time writing this but I have to do this because unlike the presenter I cannot lie to myself. Who is the stupid man? I think I am.
@@johntimbrell I'm glad I read to the bottom of your remarks, because I finally found something I could agree with.
@@johntimbrell I'm probably more intelligent. I'm a giver-Gifted everyday genius declining with age from a 163 IQ. More practically I'm a Jurist recognised by the Belgian Supreme Court, and have served on the Beta Test panel for the Ministry of Justice's StatuteLaw database, behind legislation gov uk, and have a decent share of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. More pertinent still, it's very possible I may have been the original weirdo and misfit inspiring Dominic Cummings search for folk to run the shop in 2020: I'm a recognised Tier One world-changer and have materially improved the future for very many countries.
Any individual has a viewpoint. What he's addressing is the conflict in the heart of many neurotypicals between divergent creeds and their world model, at the heart of the two-tier policing issue. Where he goes wrong is to presume Law and Justice are the same. Law is a simulacrum of Justice, a man-made model of waypoints through life designed to keep you mostly out of doing wrong: it is, however, perpetually out of date, and principles like the one being debated are an example. He's using a 5-layer Swiss Cheese model, without noticing it's protecting an Establishment creed which I reduced to status-quo. That's why I focused on a current conflict between two groups, which the Law should be reconciling but is failing to.
There are a number of undeclared subtexts. Firstly, that the Law seeks not to get involved unless matters are truly intractable: arbitration and mediation are strongly preferred preliminaries. Secondly, that the intractable often arises from dogmas and creeds many have never thought through. Thirdly, that these norms are fundamental to their personae, and therefore strongly motivate their actions in a way the Law does not. We only made the theory that all adults know the Law a practical reality about 20 years ago, by making it freely accessible as I said: in fact, what's been published is the text of most Statute, in other words what the Law says, not what it means: for that we need Case Law, currently under development, and a Plain English interpreter, yet to come, so someone needing to know hyperconcepts like this get pointed in the right direction. This is the point you make about the difference between Law and reality.
For myself, my diagnosed hyperperception is a manifestation in Giver-Giftedness of what was once called seer-medium skills. That involves being pointed in the right direction by the numinous, and then using my knowledge, very advanced search skills, and plain common sense, to find an answer to often very complicated issues. Part of that, you'll notice, strays onto the field of belief, in a way that is far outside the cultural norm of hatch'em match'em dispatch'em. Many will challenge me, taking the viewpoint that my Invisible Friend is a figment of an overheated imagination: how can it be, then, that the rather strategic deal which attracted Dom Cummings attention was landed because I'd become aware it would be coming my way some six months earlier, and so had spent four preparing an answer. When it landed, I simply took it off file at 0200 and between 0830 and 0900 closed it out. I was then left with making it happen: five days later the country's top technical specialist, who I hadn't talked to in fifty years, crossed my path looking for a new project. I'm a pathfinder, and so handed it off to implement.
@@batkinssmart4273 What items in my previous comment do you disagree with. Just one thing, do you think that it is a good thing that that the LEGAL civil procedure rules are contrary and UNLAWFUL to the Supreme court rules.
@@johntimbrellI don't recognise Blair's 'supreme' court. Our ultimate authority is that of our peers and their interpretation. A 'supreme' court of appointed judges tied to parliament can't decide legal matters under our law, regardless of what you call it. And our peers decide based on the king's law, which comes from his divine right to rule, whether provenance or serendipity.
Another fascinating overview, thanks, Al! 14:03
Thought crime? What about the chap who has just undergone a 3 day trial for silent prayer? His team are awaiting the judges decision .
With respect you are starting to understand the problem. Keep asking questions.Is the presenter conning you? My assessment. He is a very intelligent man working in a field that requires intelligence. His field, i.e. the courts, insist on the correct use of words whereas common usage or understanding of words change over time but the courts rely on exact meanings. Why then does this man use the word lawful which is a common law term when he describes a statute which is legal thing. I therefore believe that he is intentionally conning you , at best just to ease his conscience or at worst to justify working in a field that pays him huge sums to re-present people who are suffering injustice. This is not some esoteric argument over the meaning of words. This man is supporting a very evil system. A system that hides our most basic lawful protection, viz habeas corpus. The Supreme court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus should tale precedence over any other business. It should be free. A judge should be available 24/7./365. Now the legal organisation in which this man works has a condition of his working in the courts that he has a sworn duty to comply with their rules, imposes conditions for those seeking a writ of habeas corpus. It has to be in writing. There is a fee to be paid. In practice it is not available 24/7/365 because county courts direct one to the Royal Courts Of Justice in London. They are only open between 10 and 3am Monday to Friday. I know that I'm wasting my time writing this but I have to do this because unlike the presenter I cannot lie to myself. Who is the stupid man? I think I am.
Is this true, so he was just praying minding his own business?
Is there anything else to the explanation, did he do it in a particular protected spot or something?
@@randommusic4567 Yes it was near an abortion clinic, but he’d been told by the police that he could pray silently. A 3 dat trial so the legal arguments must have been difficult
@@andrewgilbertson5356 so probably hard to prove in a court of law , but it would seem likely that his presence was likely to intimidate, shame or otherwise harass people who are probably having one of the worst days of their lives.
Even if not ultimately illegal, it seems very crass and unbecoming.
I imagine the argument would be that they are not policing his thoughts, but his actions of being there at that time.
After all surely you can pray for someone's salvation or eternal destruction from anywhere
@@andrewgilbertson5356"it was near an abortion clinic" So he was not, in fact, "just praying minding his own business" then.
Gotcha. Belief must be unreasonable to be protected. That explains so much
I believe that I'm creative in a technical field and I have little time for people who fail in the one or the other if they do not appreciate what they lack. So far, I haven't gotten myself into trouble with the law. There aint no evidence there.
I would be very interested in a video on the case that lead to the legal test for veganism.
Does this apply only to enployment law? If not I wonder whether, if I consistently parked on double yellow lines on the basis that I believed they protected my car from theft, I could get away with it? (Probably not, 'though it does seem to fulfil all the criteria for a protected belief outlined here.) If anyone's prepared to give it a try, please let us know the outcome!
That would come up against the manifestation limitations. Like you could say you believe there's no such thing as private property, but that wouldn't amount to a defence to theft.
@@artmedialaw Oh well, more car parks I suppose!!
Also there is a difference between opinion and full on belief.
Most people's beliefs are pretty ridiculous if you don't hold them. Provided they don't inflict them on me that's fine, but what conspiracy theories which often seem to be sincerely held?
Fred Hoyle wasnt wrong about the big bang.
Or the distance to space! 😮
Don't ask how it's paid for 🤣
My council tax isn't it? :)
Normal behaviour in an abnormal society ...Nothing ever changes !
If you are discriminated against for a trivial belief (e.g. supporting a football team) then surely that is worse than being discriminated against because of something more important.
Tolerance is the most that people can expect; respect is earned, that’s a step much further.
Your ideology/belief may be stupid, but in a democratic society you’re permitted to hold it. For the law to decide that I should respect it is an imposition.
If you believe you were ‘born in the wrong body’ and labour under the under the delusion you’re the opposite sex (gender identity ideology) that’s your problem. The requirement that the rest of society should also subscribe to this feeling/thoughts in your head, accommodate you, and moreover agree with that delusion is overreach. Further, to make others use specific pronouns, or agree someone is the opposite sex, is compelled speech and legislating for thoughts. We’re into thoughtcrime territory here.
The law is a (totalitarian) ass in this particular area; vis a vis a women compelled to refer to her rapist in court as ‘she/her’ and then require that rapist be housed in a female prison.
Evidence that propagandists/extremists have too much influence in our criminal justice system.
It's sad that you can't accept difference in other people. Your belief that trans people are not genuine is your own delusion, of course, no different than believing in gods.
Subterranean Homesick what?
I was trying to say 'blues' but I think I said views. Must be thinking of the algortihm!
My genuine belief is that no laws apply to me. The justice system doesn't respect my belief.
Well as he said manifestation is not the same as a belief so you can't be sacked for holding that belief. It is only if you break the law, then you can be rightly sacked especially if it is requirement to have clean record.
So the law against murder being committed against you... you'll happily reject that too?
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx he said no laws applied to him not others.
Fred Hoyle was great
I like how in A for Andromeda he relocated Jodrell Bank to Yorkshire.
Belief is just an idea. No empirical evidence of reality. What tosh. So I can sincerely believe in fairies?
Witchcraft is a protected belief. A witch down here was the first one to register as a professional with HMRC. So she gets tax relief on cauldrons and the like,
Clean shaven Al!!
Yeah. What with doing the advocacy training I thought I should scrub up a bit.
@@artmedialaw 👏👍
Hoyle might yet be correct, there is a star (wandering, I think) that has been dated as older than the universe. It's most likely an error in calculation but you never know 😅.
Like deployed 👍
There are two ways of measuring the age of the universe and they do not agree according to some youtube astrophysicists I have watched. We obviously do not understand and have made some wrong assumptions on which the calculations are based.
The Hubble Tension.
Although a lot of this just boils down to how wide are the error bars.
@@artmedialaw thanks 😊
good video Al
So it DOESN'T protect religious beliefs if they 'believe the bible' because it is a historical record? Most religious believers believe it's true based on evidence. It just protects feelings, not actual beliefs. 'I believe my parents' IS evidence based, even if the sources are bad.
So believing the earth is flat should be a protected belief? e.g. this is the belief of the NBA basketballer Kyrie Irving.
Believing Extra Terrestrials are hiding on Planet Earth is a protected belief?
Flat Earth is an interesting one. If someone said they believed in flat earth because that was their interpretation on the bible then that might be protected. But now there's a flat earth movement that claims to be science based. So they might not be.
Thank you Alan !@@artmedialaw I agree with you. I've gone down the rabbit hole with some 'Esoterica' and the belief comes from a religious source, including e.g the Middle Earth theory.
A protected belief is a persons choice to reject a certain person for physical attributes in a personal intimate relationship the race card can’t be used to harass people calling them racist if they refuse to form a personal intimate relationship, why so many self entitled sexual predators they believe their right
Does not sound like Scientology would fit the definition.
Can you explain how "does not interfere with the human rights of others" applies to a religion that wants to kill non adherents or permits its members to steal from non members?
so you're saying Tom Cruise wants to kill non-Scientologists ?
Could be a meat eater and hold the value of the sanctity of all life
To me the best way to improve the system would just be to say "your boss can´t sack you for your political views", in most of Europe it´s pretty much impossible to sack people for political beliefs, unless you´re an open Nazi, in the UK it´s a bit of a grey zone, if you support say the Labour party of the Tories then that probably would be an unjustifiable sacking, but if it could theoretically damage the company´s reputation, it might be possible for them to sack you.
It´s a tricky one, I think there´s an aspect of whether or not your belief stops you doing certain types of work, i.e as a judge your duty is to uphold the law, whether you disagree with it or not. Likewise if you´re a very traditionalist Roman Catholic or Muslim and you work as a registry officer it doesn´t give you the right to refuse to marry gay people.
Also, on the other side I definitely can see why nobody would want a holocaust denier to work for them. I wouldn´t be comfortable working with people who espouse rabid anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, that go beyond rational critique of the religion.
Yeah i think that it should be more clear cut, you should not be sacked for holding any belief
As a person from a Jewish family i would even include people who dont believe the Holocaust happened (as abhorrent as i personally believe that that opinion is)
The law should only get involved when a belief stops of causes someone to do something that is not in alignment with the job role they are employed as
Can you give an example of a "rabid anti-muslim conspiracy theory"?
@@FruitForBreakfast just look at far right loons online there are plenty, i.e Muslims are all in a conspiracy to undermine Western civilisation, plenty of people allege that all or most Muslims support terrorism.
@@FruitForBreakfast Plenty of people suggest Muslims have a tendency to be pedophiles, even though there´s no evidence of this, or at no greater a rate than people of any other ethnicity or religion.
@@FruitForBreakfast not that i believe it but one that i have heard is that they are trying to breed white people out of the UK
Would that fit the criteria of what you are asking for
Why is believing in just 2 sexes a protected belief now then
Probably because scientifically not every single member of humanity falls into 2 discrete biological sexes
The ruling that it wasn't has been overturned. It could definitely be held to be a belief based our current scientific knowledge of the world.
So if you stupidly disagree with the court, that's protected?
Unfortunately not, pleading not guilty and then being found guilty will result in you getting a lengthier sentence. A discount for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity, is problematic on various levels.
When is a protected belief really a truth, a fact that cannot be disputed? How does a protected belief be assigned to a fact or truth in law?
I ask because sex is immutable, no one in the history of humanity has ever in reality changed the sex they were born - yet Maya Forstater won her appeal at employment tribunal in asserting that sex is immutable, no man can be a woman, was on appeal deemed 'worthy of respect in a democratic society', WORIADS, as a protected 'belief' - when isn't it a fact?
Confused. Please advise.
A fact and a belief are not necessarily antonyms, indeed knowledge is often defined in psychology as "justified true belief". In the UK, both believing people can change their gender and sex and disagreeing with that view are protected under the law, they are seen as positions in a debate that aren´t extreme in and of themselves.
Things aren´t protected because they´re a "fact", like being a Marxist, or a Tory, or an Anarchist are protected, even though they are mutually exclusive worldviews and it´s not impossible for them both to be right about everything.
It´s more about maintaining free speech in society, than who is actually right and I agree with that.
Indeed, one huge problem with the trans debate is both sides have a tendency not to listen to each other´s claims and I think more sincere honest discussion would be good.
Ms Forstater was attacking a non-existent belief: trans people don't believe in changing biological sex but in changing the social construct of gender.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx Some transpeople do believe that sex can be changed, though most don´t. Regardless, it is a protected belief, whether it is correct, or well-founded is kind of besides the point really.
@@Minimmalmythicist I've yet to read anything about trans people believing that biological sex can be changed. Have you a source for your claim?
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx The vast majority don´t, however the operation is still oficially called a "sex change", it depends if you only count primary characteristics or secondary ones as constituting a sex change.
Great video! I am of a non-religious disposition and sincerely believe that belief in Gods by any religion is no more credible than a belief in fairies and ghosts or in the many ten-a-penny redundant Gods of ancient times. I firmly believe people should be allowed to believe in what they wish without fear or favour, but we be able to openly criticise or even ridicule the beliefs of others without being penalised by government if someone happ[ens to take offence. It seems to me that beliefs are being treated to a great extent as factual when they are patently not.
I don´t think they are, it´s just you can´t fire someone because you disagree with their religion.
There´s no law saying you can´t mock religions you disagree with.
This is where the manifestation element comes in. So an employer might be able to mock religion generally when outside of work but couldn't mock an individual staff member. But then you get into issues about where does out of work conduct become relevant to in work conduct.
So is this law why a man can say he “believes” he is a woman and people who use logic and science to argue against that man being able to use a woman’s changing room for example, are not taken notice of? So the man’s “belief” takes precedence over women’s rights in all arenas such as sports, and privacy in public toilets etc?
yep, you got it -- their belief has nothing to do with science
No it's because your belief that we are not women is protected despite the huge body of science that shows we are women.
If I am not a woman explain why apes when removed from their mothers and reared alone are unable to rear their offspring whilst ones who can observe their mother's can? Even if no sound can be transmitted.
Please explain phantom limb syndrome without recourse to the model of a neuromatrix
Because, you can't. Which is why I was born a baby girl and I will have tried to live my entire life my entire life being me. Go watch Star Trek Chain of Command and like Picard I told everyone that I only saw 4 lights not 5! and yes that I was a girl
@@firstname4337no it's your belief that has nothing to do with science. You have chosen to believe in a en wikipedia.
org/wiki/Lie-to-children rather than accept a deeper truth
Not really. The reality is that cisgender women's rights are not taken away because trans women's rights are extended - they are entirely compatible. It's revealing that anti-trans activists don't apply their beliefs against trans men supposedly threatening cis men.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx The right to be in a female only space is certainly being taken away.
So all the theists who say they have evidence proving their religion are not protected?
Generally where there's a protected belief then not holding that belief is also protected. It's not totally symmetrical though. Believing in the sanctity of life is protected, but the opposite probably wouldn't be.
But both creationism and evolution are protected beliefs. Even though many creationists would say that's a faith based position but most people would probably say they believe in evolution from an empirical perspective.
I would definitely be interested in more depth on this subject, especially the difference between belief and empirical evidence in the area of an increasing cohort of men claiming they are women. E.g. if I were to state that scientifically that is impossible, would I fail that test?
In addition, this seems to be one of those cases you mention where beliefs conflict, so who decides which is the more important belief?
Lastly, I have read that there is a guide for courts which states that a person's preferred pronouns must be used: is that true?
So, I believe there are only two sexes is ok?
You can believe it. The science as we know it right now doesn't support you, but go ahead and believe what you want after reading 'Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary' by Agustín Fuentes in Scientific American, 1/5/23.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx Thats my Belief and Im sticking to it. Christian Bible Genesis
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx There might be scientists who go along with genderwoo but the science is not on their side. There are two sexes and human beings can't change sex.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xxtripe
@@margaretgreenwood4243 Believe what you want, but don't become a farmer. You'll have a fit when you get a freemartin... or do you believe Satan creates them?
The steady state hypothesis is like the big bang hypothesis they are different schools of thought within a paradigm of thought. The nature of science is the recocognition of the constant fight to prove a rule. We could all be living in the matrix, but that is unfalseafiable & thus is a belief not a scientific statement. A lot of the issues around sex & Gender are matters of belief. J K Rowling believes I am a man. It has no basis in society, which is why her belief is a protected belief whilst my knowledge that I was born a girl is based on hard science, it is disprovable, as it's based on how other aspects of life on this planet functions. If they fail so my hypothesis fails and visa versa. In my case my I am using how the body is aware of itself via it's nerves and this is true right across at least the animal kingdom to define Type B transexuality.
And in the case of Type A transexuality how species learn and modify their behaviour to increase gene replication. This is especially true of species that must pass on knowledge of how to replicate it's genes but without any form of recognisable language. There is a third type of transexuality which an expression of Typed A & B together. And type O or ordinary i.e people without any form of transexuality.
Obviously this short hand is based on the hypothesis of blood types short hand. Like everything in science, it's not exact but it's a useful day to day rule of thumb to understand gender and sex.
Also known as "lies to kids" en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Lie-to-children
A useful rule of thumb to understand sex (gender is a social construct), is whether you have XX or XY chromosomes. (Rare DSDs are without the rule of thumb.) From what you say, you're chromosomes are XY and you are therefore male; that has basis in society and science. Nice try, though, with all the pseudo-scientific nonsense; sounds as though your belief would be protected as a sincerely held but irrational fantasy.
Carnists? I prefer Meateaterian.
"Omnivores" would be more accurate.
@@jerry2357 no it wouldnt. you are a carnist
Why do so many Yorkshiremen think they're so fucking great? They really aren't.
The whole concept of a protected belief is ridiculous in my opinion. Nonsense on stilts.
p.s I got a community strike on my post. I suspect that language difficulties with an American AI gave issues. Spot the key word!
There is no such thing as a 'carnist'. Its a recently created derogatory term and used only by a minority of vegans to essentially insult dehumanise their outgroup, that being the other 99.5% of the population.
Look up its origin and its common use if you don't 'believe' me.
Its basically a slur, originating from a cults ingroup language.
Gosh, never heard of the term.
I presume “carnivore” would be a better term. A true carnivore in human terms is someone who eats predominately animals products and excludes vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, grains etc.
"slur" LOL, no one who eats meat would EVER care
@@Maugirl2so me except when I am having a cheat day with sosmix. I bludy adore sosmix. There is so much great vegan food.
Veganism - really utterly wonderful people - destroying the planet!!
@@firstname4337it is a slur to discriminate against my beliefs. Vegans are mass murderers who chose water that has bleach burned to death millions of tiny animals to wash their vegetables and we minimize this by eating large mammals dispatched humanely. And they accuse us of torturing animals.
protected belief - all ideas.
Go to The Old duke opposite the Trow!
I also did the Hatchet. As part of my scientific research into old pubs and not just cause I like IPAs. Didn't have time to squeeze the Shakespeare in though.
@@artmedialawThe Hatchet for me too.
@@artmedialaw Love The Hatchet too!
@@artmedialaw Which Shakespear though. With Bristol I'd go for better beer - such as the brewery taps - rather than the older buildings.
The irony in the Hatchet is it was full of Cornish beer! But they had Neck Oil so I was more than happy.
How much of this is needed just because people behave like idiots? A friend celebrated veganism becoming a protected belief because it would require services to provide for vegan customers. Many years ago, she gave birth in hospital, things went wrong and she had to stay in a few days, with the baby in intensive care. She asked for the food to be adapted (as there was nothing vegan on the menu) and someone from the kitchen came onto the ward and yelled at her for being a nuisance. When they finally brought her food, it had dairy in and as she hadn't consumed dairy for 20+ years, she had a bad reaction and ended up even more ill than already was. If the kitchen had just done their job and not been so vile, she probably wouldn't have been moved by the decision to make it a protected belief. I feel like it's a law that's become necessary because people have been foolish in their interactions with others.
yes, they are a nuisance always requiring attention and special treatment.
@@FruitForBreakfast agreed. I have an ex that was a chef and they often have delusions of grandeur whilst failing to have the skills to do the job, like adapting meals according to customer requirements.
This doesn't do that at all, else pork would be illegal to sell because it makes the restaurant non halal/kosher. It doesn't protect the projection of that belief at all. It only protects discrimination against holding it. For example if you are an ethical vegan but ask for meat, i have to give it to you. But i don't have to make you a special meal for your beliefs.
@@mandowarrior123 the fact that it is protected belief has been used many times to compel organisations like hospitals and schools to provide vegan meals, where they had previously refused.