From theSunday Telegraph* and GB News*
The view that Islam is problematic and should be criticised is a protected belief under equalities law, a judge has ruled.
Patrick Lee, 61, was found guilty of misconduct by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) last April over posts on X. After a four-year disciplinary process, he was banned from the professional body and ordered to pay nearly £23,000 in costs.
His posts included referring to the Prophet Mohammed as a “monster” and describing Islam as “morally bankrupt”, a “dangerous cult”, and a “1,300-year-old con trick”. The trade b…
From theSunday Telegraph* and GB News*
The view that Islam is problematic and should be criticised is a protected belief under equalities law, a judge has ruled.
Patrick Lee, 61, was found guilty of misconduct by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) last April over posts on X. After a four-year disciplinary process, he was banned from the professional body and ordered to pay nearly £23,000 in costs.
His posts included referring to the Prophet Mohammed as a “monster” and describing Islam as “morally bankrupt”, a “dangerous cult”, and a “1,300-year-old con trick”. The trade body ruled that 42 of his posts that criticised Islam (were) . . . “either offensive or inflammatory or both”, adding that 29 were “designed to demean or insult Muslims”.

But following an employment tribunal hearing, the actuary has won legal protection for his beliefs.
It is the first time a court has ruled that “Islam-critical” beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Previous claimants had been told such views were not “worthy of respect in a democracy”.
The decision follows a 2021 ruling that Maya Forstater’s gender-critical beliefs were protected under the same law.
Mr Lee, whose final hearing in February will decide whether his posts on X were an expression of his protected belief and whether the regulator discriminated against him, thinks his case could have a similar impact. He told The Sunday Telegraph: “I hope that it will embolden other people to speak up, and it will stop employers and regulators from gagging people when they’re making valid criticisms of Islam.”
On Saturday night, Lord Young of Acton, the head of the Free Speech Union, said the decision was an “important victory . . . If describing Islam as ‘backward’, ‘a con trick’, ‘a dangerous cult’, ‘the root of the evil’ and calling the Prophet Mohammed a ‘monster’ are all expressions of an ‘Islamic-critical’ belief that’s protected by the Equality Act, trying to ban people from saying these things in the workplace won’t be possible. The judge in this case has grasped the important distinction between disrespecting a belief and disrespecting a person who holds that belief.
“Too often, robust criticism of Islam is treated as a form of harassment against Muslims and conflating the two has had a chilling effect on free speech.”
In a written judgment handed down on Monday, Employment tribunal judge David Khan found Mr Lee “a reliable witness because he gave cogent, consistent and credible evidence” and accepted that he “is (and was at all relevant times) critical of certain Islamic doctrines and practices, and not to individual followers of Islam or to the Islamic faith/religion at large”.
The ruling has been delivered amid wider debate about religious sensitivity and the limits of free expression. Ministers are still considering a definition of “anti-Muslim hate”, which is expected to omit the contentious term “Islamophobia”.
Speaking publicly for the first time, Mr Lee said he felt compelled to defend his right to question Islamic teachings despite his five-year ordeal. “I’m the wrong person for the Institute and Faculty to have picked on, because I believe really strongly you have to speak up about these things,” he said.
He claimed that the cover-up of child sexual exploitation by Pakistani men in Rotherham showed the danger of avoiding scrutiny over cultural sensitivity concerns. “I’m speaking up about the sort of things that many people in the country are concerned about. And it’s wrong, as we saw with the Rotherham grooming gang scandal, for people to keep quiet. Because that actually costs lives,” he said.
On Saturday, Douglas Murray, an author whose books are also quoted in Mr Lee’s witness statement, welcomed the ruling: “If Mr Lee had made the same comments about a Jewish or Christian prophet, he would never have found himself in any trouble. In fact, he’d have probably been offered a book contract and a slot on Thought for the Day. But our society has lived for years with a de facto blasphemy law when it comes to Mohammed and the foundations of the Muslim faith.”