'Independence views 'protected by law''

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting case, and just the preliminary hearing, but given the vagueness of the Equality Act 2010, it was always going to need some case law.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45075801

[Rhiannon]

Interesting case, and just the preliminary hearing, but given the vagueness of the Equality Act 2010, it was always going to need some case law.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45075801

So would a white supremacist be able to argue that he or she had a 'philosophical belief' too?

[Nearly Sane]

So would a white supremacist be able to argue that he or she had a 'philosophical belief' too?

Not according to the guidance given with the act, see article below. And yet belief in climate change is a philosophy according to the guidance

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15812177.SNP___39_discrimination__39__case_to_consider_whether_Scottish_independence_is_a_philosophical_belief/

[Rhiannon]

Not according to the guidance given with the act, see article below. And yet belief in climate change is a philosophy according to the guidance

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15812177.SNP___39_discrimination__39__case_to_consider_whether_Scottish_independence_is_a_philosophical_belief/

So 'philosophical views' equals 'things that the Guardian's editors approve of'?

[Nearly Sane]

So 'philosophical views' equals 'things that the Guardian's editors approve of'?

Or are in line with what is part of the rule of law in a democracy as the article covers. It's not an easy rule to make sense and I think the use of the word philosophy is problematic.

[Rhiannon]

Or are in line with what is part of the rule of law in a democracy as the article covers. It's not an easy rule to make sense and I think the use of the word philosophy is problematic.

Sorry, only just had the time to read it.

So presumably holding a strongly held belief that man made climate change is a load of old pony must also be covered, and also a belief in anti-vaxxing, so long as the believer isn't in the medical or associated professions. Both are within the rule of law.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, only just had the time to read it.

So presumably holding a strongly held belief that man made climate change is a load of old pony must also be covered, and also a belief in anti-vaxxing, so long as the believer isn't in the medical or associated professions. Both are within the rule of law.

Arguably you could be an anti vaxxer and in the medical profession. You can be religiously against abortion and in the medical profession. I think if as a GP you refused to carry out vaccination you would be in breach of contract.

It's one of those things where it's a perfectly valid thing to try to legislate for, but is desperately difficult to be clear on.

[Rhiannon]

Arguably you could be an anti vaxxer and in the medical profession. You can be religiously against abortion and in the medical profession. I think if as a GP you refused to carry out vaccination you would be in breach of contract.

It's one of those things where it's a perfectly valid thing to try to legislate for, but is desperately difficult to be clear on.

I would have thought if you also advised against vaccination you would be in breach of contract too. If a health visitor warned against it could they then be dismissed?

As you say, it makes sense why they are doing it but it could get messy.

[jeremyp]

I find it quite disturbing. It seems that certain "philosophical" beliefs are acceptable but certain others are not and, as Rhiannon said, they seem to align with the Guardian's editorial position.

You can argue that belief in Scottish Independence (a political position) is a philosophical belief and also climate change but doesn't that render the word "philosophical" almost meaningless? 

[jeremyp]

Arguably you could be an anti vaxxer and in the medical profession.

Don't doctors have to swear to "first do no harm"? If they are anti-vaxxers, they are in breach of their "contract" with the medical profession - at least if they ever act on or publicise their belief.

[Nearly Sane]

I find it quite disturbing. It seems that certain "philosophical" beliefs are acceptable but certain others are not and, as Rhiannon said, they seem to align with the Guardian's editorial position.

You can argue that belief in Scottish Independence (a political position) is a philosophical belief and also climate change but doesn't that render the word "philosophical" almost meaningless?

indeed, which is why I have already said that it's a problematic word. All positions that view certain opinions being harmful and subject to sanction in some way are problematic in this sense but I don't think the argument for compete freedom of speech can be made logically consistently either.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't doctors have to swear to "first do no harm"? If they are anti-vaxxers, they are in breach of their "contract" with the medical profession - at least if they ever act on or publicise their belief.

In the UK, the Hippocratic Oath hasn't been used for sometime, rather there are ethical codes of conduct but even if we include that anti vaxxers might argue that vaccination is harmful. Also in that case abortion could definitely be argued to be harmful. Harm as a concept isn't always clear.