The Shield of Reasoned Critique: Tribunal Recognises Protection for “Islam-Critical” Beliefs
In a judgment that may prove to be one of the defining moments for freedom of expression in modern Britain, the Employment Tribunal has ruled that “Islam-critical” beliefs are legally protected under the Equality Act 2010. The case of Patrick Lee v. Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) marks the first time a UK court has formally recognised that reasoned criticism of Islamic doctrines — even when expressed in strong or provocative language — constitutes a philosophical belief worthy of respect in a democratic society.
The Case and Its Context
Mr Lee, a 61-year-old actuary, was disciplined and expelled by the IFoA after posting a series of comments on X (formerly Twitter) that criticised aspects of Islamic teaching. The regulator accused him of violating the profession’s “Integrity principle” by failing to “show respect for others.” Forty-two of his posts were deemed “offensive or inflammatory or both,” and 29 were said to “demean or insult Muslims.”¹
After a four-year ordeal, Employment Judge David Khan found that Mr Lee’s view — that “traditional Islam, rather than a reformed and modernised version, is problematic and deserving of criticism” — qualifies as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act. The judge noted that Lee’s criticisms were aimed at “certain Islamic doctrines and practices, not at individual followers of Islam.”
It was also accepted that Lee’s convictions were based on “reasoned analysis rather than prejudice,” supported by extensive reference to historical, theological, and human rights sources — from Winston Churchill to historian Tom Holland and the Canadian human-rights activist Yasmine Mohammed.
A Precedent-Setting Ruling
The tribunal’s recognition of Islam-critical beliefs builds directly upon the precedent set by Maya Forstater v. CGD Europe (2021), in which gender-critical beliefs were protected under the Equality Act.² Both cases were supported by the Free Speech Union (FSU), and both establish that sincerely held, reasoned convictions about fundamental social or moral questions — even when they offend prevailing orthodoxies — enjoy protection under British law.
FSU head Lord Young of Acton called the decision “an important victory,” declaring: “This judgment will make it much harder for the Government to roll out an official, state-approved definition of ‘Islamophobia.’ In a free society, people must be free to criticise ideas, however sacred they may be to others.”
Mr Lee himself expressed similar sentiments: “In the absence of a blasphemy law, I do not understand on what basis my criticism of Islam cannot in a democracy be protected.” He added, “If someone described Christianity as a ‘dangerous cult’ or a ‘2000-year-old con trick,’ no one in authority would bat an eyelid. Why should Islam be treated differently?”
A Challenge to Ideological Conformity
This ruling comes as the Government continues to deliberate over whether to adopt a definition of “anti-Muslim hate.” Ministers are said to have rejected the term “Islamophobia” due to its chilling implications for free speech.³ The Lee case strengthens that position by confirming that critique of a religion, even when forcefully expressed, does not equate to hostility toward its adherents.
As Judge Khan wrote, “The claimant’s evidence in relation to these tweets, that he was inveighing against the offending doctrines and practices because they continued to be treated as authentic and officially sanctioned by Islamic leaders, was not inconsistent with the pleaded belief.”
In legal terms, the decision aligns with the principles affirmed by the High Court in R v. Coskun (2025), which overturned the conviction of a Turkish refugee for burning a copy of the Qur’an. Mr Justice Bennathan wrote: “The criminal law is not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset. The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.”⁴
Together, Forstater, Coskun, and Lee represent a trilogy of judgments reaffirming Britain’s fragile but vital tradition of robust free expression.
The Ethical Dimension: Critique Versus Contempt
From a Catholic standpoint, the moral contours of this debate are deeply significant. The tribunal’s clear distinction between criticism of doctrines and hatred of persons mirrors the traditional moral theology of the Church. St Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae, distinguishes between odium peccati (hatred of sin or error) and odium personae (hatred of the sinner). To challenge ideas — even sacred ones — is not an act of hate, but of reason and conscience.
Catholic social teaching holds that man’s dignity is rooted in his capacity for truth. To silence legitimate critique of ideas, including religious ideas, is to suppress the very faculty that distinguishes man from beast.⁵ The Church herself insists that “the right to seek the truth is bound up with the dignity of the human person”⁶ — a dignity that extends to those who challenge even the most deeply held convictions.
The tribunal’s decision thus reflects a principle both legal and theological: that respect for persons does not require reverence for beliefs.
Implications for Regulators and Institutions
The ramifications of this ruling extend beyond Islam. Regulators, employers, universities, and professional associations that discipline members for robust but reasoned commentary on religion, politics, or ideology may now face claims of discrimination. The judgment implies that professional codes demanding “respect” for all beliefs cannot override statutory rights to free expression.
In practice, this means that disciplinary action for expressing lawful opinions about religion may itself breach the Equality Act. If upheld at the final hearing in February 2026, Mr Lee’s case could reshape the relationship between professional regulation and personal conscience.
A Turning Point for Free Speech in Britain
Author and commentator Douglas Murray, whose writings were cited in Mr Lee’s defence, observed: “If Mr Lee had made the same comments about a Jewish or Christian prophet, he would never have found himself in trouble. For years we’ve lived under a de facto blasphemy law when it comes to Mohammed. This decision breaks that taboo.”
The tribunal’s recognition of this disparity underscores an uncomfortable truth: Britain’s liberal establishment has tolerated the erosion of free speech under the guise of “sensitivity” and “inclusion.” The Lee judgment restores equilibrium, reaffirming that no faith — however widely held — enjoys immunity from scrutiny.
The late Lord Denning once wrote that “freedom of speech means freedom to criticise or to ridicule ideas — even if those ideas are sacred to someone else.” This ruling reasserts that ancient liberty against the creeping encroachment of ideological censorship.
A Catholic Reflection: Liberty in Truth
For Catholics, the moral principle at stake is not license, but liberty. The right to speak freely arises from the duty to speak truthfully. To defend that right — even for those with whom we profoundly disagree — is to defend the conditions of evangelisation itself.
As Pope Benedict XVI observed, “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.”⁷ The tribunal’s ruling, then, is not merely a secular victory for free expression; it is a vindication of that deeper harmony between faith and reason upon which Christian civilisation was built.
Britain’s freedom to proclaim, question, and contest ideas remains fragile. But as this judgment shows, the law still remembers that liberty dies when truth is forbidden to speak.
- Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, Final Disciplinary Tribunal Determination: Mr Patrick Lee, May 2025.
- Maya Forstater v. CGD Europe [2021] UKEAT 0105_20_1006 — confirmed protection for gender-critical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010.
- Home Office, Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group: Policy Notes and Definition Review, 2024.
- R v. Coskun [2025] EWHC 2378 (Admin).
- Gaudium et Spes, §15.
- Dignitatis Humanae, §2.
- Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, §1.
Leave a Reply