So, as an illustration of the impact of the Maya Forstater ruling, I have taken the relevant part of the judgement — the judge’s reason for ruling her belief “unprotected” - and edited it down to refer to “intelligent design” instead of gender identity. Perhaps this will highlight for some people why it is so concerning. The full judgement is here.
The core of the Claimant’s belief is that life on Earth evolved solely through natural, undirected, physical processes. She considers this is a material reality. It is biological evolution that is fundamentally important, rather than “intelligent design”. She will not accept in any circumstances that an organism has features that are irreducibly complex, or that appear as a result of purpose and direction. That is the belief that the Claimant holds.
The Claimant contends that the belief is “important” because it is necessary to support her sense of self, her humanism and political activism, and support for science education.
Many of the concerns that the Claimant has, such as ensuring protection of scientific education, do not, in fact, rest on holding a belief that evolution is undirected. It is quite possible to accept that an intelligent deisgner exists but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to look at specifically evolutionary processes.
I accept that the Claimant genuinely holds the view that life is the result of undirected phyisical processes. For her it is more that an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available. Even though she has come to this belief recently she is fixed in it, and appears to be becoming more so. She is not prepared to consider the possibility that her belief may not be correct. I accept that the belief Claimant goes to substantial aspects of human life and behaviour.
However, I consider that the Claimant’s view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. She goes so far as to deny the right of a person to believe that they are themselves result of intelligent design, rather than mere chance.
The Claimant’s position is that even if a person believes themselves to be the product of intelligent design, they cannot honestly describe themselves as having been created for some purpose. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society. It is incompatible with the human rights of others.
There is nothing to stop the Claimant campaigning against the proposed revision to the curriculum to be based on intelligent design. She is entitled to put forward her opinion that there should be some areas of biology where study of specific evolutionary processes is appropriate. However, that does not mean that her absolutist view that humanity is the result of undirected physical processes is a protected belief for the purposes of the EqA. The Claimant can legitimately put forward her arguments about the importance of some aspects of evolutionary theory, without insisting on calling belief in intelligent design false.
Calling a person the result of random evolution rather than purpose is likely to be profoundly distressing. It may be unlawful harassment. Even paying due regard to the qualified right to freedom of expression, people cannot expect to be protected if their core belief involves violating others dignity and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.
As set out above, I draw a distinction between belief and separate action based on the belief that may constitute harassment. However, if part of the belief necessarily will result in the violation of the dignity of others, that is a component of the belief, rather than something separate, and will be relevant to determining whether the belief is a protected philosophical belief. While the Claimant will as a matter of courtesy not actively gainsay adherents to intelligent design she will not as part of her belief ever accept that intelligent deisgn is in any way true, however hurtful it is to others. In her response to the complaint made by her co-workers the Claimant sated “I have been told that it is offensive to say ‘there is no such thing as intelligent design’. However since these statement are true I will continue to say them” and “no one has the right to compel others to make statements they do not believe.”
I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of evolution and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person as the product of chance even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.
