From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Fri May 16 19:38:40 2025 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Is Astrology a Religion? References: <1859796159.26a00395@uninhabited.net> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [1747419700706] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 19:38:38 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri May 16 19:21:40 2025 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-hex-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=SRwwVZqYb4ynJAs36JrGc9oaCxagVFGa9/MduSPKr+g=; t=1747419697; x=1748024497; b=Fnx+7scDtcIqfjL > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Is Astrology a Religion? > Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 19:21:34 +0100 > Message-ID: > References: > > <1859796159.26a00395@uninhabited.net> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net vVxnESqFFbXdEiwRJJgLQQz9vE8A6W3Is3uE6Ni9Mx8KuqDf+K > Cancel-Lock: sha1:k51fn9Fy4DjH0zcwX9m0ihmqKJQ= sha256:jzgIXPmUizLEaqZvUdCnaqr5n4pjO343zK6dFARDy90= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 39 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.9 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 16/05/2025 19:03, Roger Hayter wrote: > > On 16 May 2025 at 17:27:03 BST, "Norman Wells" wrote: > > > >> On 16/05/2025 15:26, The Todal wrote: > >>> On 16/05/2025 14:36, Norman Wells wrote: > >>>> On 16/05/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote: > >>>>> On 16 May 2025 at 10:24:46 BST, "Mark Goodge" > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no > >>>>>>>> knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger > >>>>>>>> Criteria". > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and > >>>>>>>> provided a > >>>>>>>> reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to > >>>>>>>> determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the > >>>>>>>> Equality Act 2010. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of > >>>>>>> current mores and prejudices. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically > >>>>>> interprets this > >>>>>> requirement. > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe the quotation is from: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ > >>>>> media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/ > >>>>> Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf > >>>> > >>>> Which decided of course that Ms Forstater's belief as to gender > >>>> identity *was* a philosophical belief falling within Section 10 of the > >>>> Equality Act, and is therefore a protected characteristic. > >>>> > >>>> And if that is, a belief in astrology can hardly be excluded. > >>>> > >>>>>> But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to > >>>>>> argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be > >>>>>> incompatible > >>>>>> with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example, > >>>>>> while a > >>>>>> belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected > >>>>>> belief, a > >>>>>> belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute > >>>>>> theocracy would > >>>>>> not be. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of > >>>>>> respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority > >>>>>> should be > >>>>>> denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be > >>>>>> unworthy > >>>>>> of respect, and hence not a protected belief. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mark > >>>> > >>>> But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical > >>>> belief' is covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or > >>>> would like it to have said. And any 'interpretation' of that which > >>>> excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact clearly a > >>>> misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted > >>>> what it did and nothing else. > >>> > >>> You've either forgotten Grainger v Nicholson or you've decided to ignore > >>> it because it doesn't fit with your argument. > >> > >> I have neither forgotten it nor ignored it. > >> > >> I am saying that it was wrongly decided, and unconstitutionally usurps > >> the will of Parliament. Parliament clearly intended *any* philosophical > >> belief to be a protected characteristic, which is what the Act > >> specifically and unambiguously says. Grainger decided to ignore that > >> and introduce restrictions that the Act did not contain. > >> > >> It is not a permissible function of the courts notionally to rewrite any > >> Act into a form that it likes better. All it is there to do is apply > >> the law as Parliament enacted it. Anything else is acting ultra-vires, > >> and undermines Parliamentary supremacy. > >> > >> There is no justifiable basis in law for going first to European > >> directives and legislation and concluding that a UK Act either doesn't > >> mean what it clearly says or would better have said something else, > >> concluding that it therefore does. If a Court thinks an Act as enacted > >> is incompatible with European law, the correct course is for it to say > >> so, make a declaration to that effect, and wait for Parliament to amend > >> the law. But it didn't. > >> > >> Regardless of that, there is nothing in Grainger anyway that would mean > >> or even indicate astrology is not a philosophical belief. > > > > It is really easy to think of philosophical beliefs (for instance held in > > parts of the Middle East, and others held in parts of the Reform Party) that > > Parliament couldn't possibly have intended to protect from discrimination. > > On the words of the Act, Parliament *did* intend to protect from > discrimination '*any* philosophical belief'. It would not have > specifically said so otherwise. > > > Indeed, it has made some, but not all, such beliefs illegal. So you have no > > basis for implying otherwise. > > It has made no beliefs illegal. It is not Big Brother legislating > against Thoughtcrime. > > What it has done is make *discrimination* on the grounds of > philosophical belief illegal. Any philosophical belief. > > It protects *you* from being discriminated against on the grounds of any > such beliefs, including by those whose beliefs you think may be illegal. > It protects us all. > > > Particular examples of such beliefs are left as an exercise for the reader. > > I see none here. Perhaps you'd elucidate. > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmgnhi4ACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x4v+QgAn7NeG3mrA+ksbGw9Lq6hD3gQ3I6L/lWPd5rzLALJc8woWiUNcoFitsv9 87ahmPJkt7XiCCdc53SOZZZmpoh2VYw9CDsPRZm8/w7Dwua8CeeFBG/Vdic3u0Pl DTr97Y8/FMaDk+54sVCAxm1CEIPtVTFz6CkRqbkXM3cL6VkBED6yaeLkprd63w0U DWXbfBbFmQcS8kKxWfJT98dKpfOupX457brzuYLMARZwCPyaMCW0oGfXWg09EqUw 4QOUUeTKuFLunNXbKt9SLwXfi1wSGTpXQqhev64wDXPD1pX0Kq1MK+h0eXbZfjOH tsQcp5UqanKL4io3wc9dPk7y/x/tDA== =Rkcv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----