The definition in the Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10
Jonathan
Have you had a chance to study the cases in the article linked upthread?Steady rider wrote: ↑14 Jan 2023, 5:09pmThe Act lacks a definition of 'belief' but via cases have provided guidance. It may be possible for a court to include a belief that has not so far been recognised.Which beliefs are protected by the Equality Act 2010?
The Act does not include a definition of belief other than ‘belief means any religious or
philosophical belief’ and includes a lack of a particular belief. The courts have developed
a definition of belief through the cases they have decided.
A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but it must affect how a
person lives their life or perceives the world.
For a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act it must:
• be genuinely held
• be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of
information available
• be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and
not in conflict with fundamental rights of others. For example, Holocaust denial, or the
belief in racial superiority are not protected.
Beliefs such as humanism, pacifism, vegetarianism and the belief in man-made climate
change are all protected.
A person who may have cycled all their life without a helmet and may have a philosophical belief that this is how they cycle and for various reasons may not wish to change that view. It could be their belief that this is very important to them and would be harmful if they had to change. They may also view it as part of their human rights to decide about wearing a helmet. They may also believe it fundamental to their health and wellbeing to continue to cycle without a helmet.
The Act may be more closely defined.A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but it must affect how a
person lives their life or perceives the world
Trying to listA belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but it must affect how a
person lives their life or perceives the world.
And what advice were you given by the EASS, please?Steady rider wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 11:53am Thanks Tim for the link.
I discussed it with them today.
I think it boils down to one group imposing their belief onto others, those who believe helmets should be worn imposing their view onto others.
...
He mentioned complaining, so any cyclist not taking part due to helmet requirement could complain as a first step.What you can do
If you think you’ve been unfairly discriminated against you can:
complain directly to the person or organisation
use someone else to help you sort it out (called ‘mediation’ or ‘alternative dispute resolution’)
make a claim in a court or tribunal
I mentioned the issue appears to be on primarily based on beliefs because it is not a legal requirement or an health and safety requirement. One group deciding helmets should be worn and others not having the same view. Human rights were also mentioned because some evidence suggests helmets may contribute to accidents occurring. I think Cycling UK could collect copies of any complaints to CTT or concerning any cycle rides requiring their use and this potentially could be useful if group action was possible.Types of discrimination ('protected characteristics')
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:
age
gender reassignment
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation
I can only repeat the recommendation to read the case law and the subsequent expert interpretation of what can be classified as a belief.Steady rider wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 4:25pm ...
I mentioned the issue appears to be on primarily based on beliefs because it is not a legal requirement or an health and safety requirement. One group deciding helmets should be worn and others not having the same view. Human rights were also mentioned because some evidence suggests helmets may contribute to accidents occurring.
...
That's the point of the Equality Act 2010, "It means that public bodies have to consider all individuals when carrying out their day-to-day work – in shaping policy, in delivering services..." I can challenge laws using the Act ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance )In the case of coal, I think you can still buy a bag, any legal requirement would be a law. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement or H&S requirement.
I only saw this bit quite by chance. My concentration was already drifting and I was wondering where coal came into it. Anyway, I don't feel able to add anything useful.tim-b wrote: ↑17 Jan 2023, 5:05amThat's the point of the Equality Act 2010, "It means that public bodies have to consider all individuals when carrying out their day-to-day work – in shaping policy, in delivering services..." I can challenge laws using the Act ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance )In the case of coal, I think you can still buy a bag, any legal requirement would be a law. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement or H&S requirement.
Without wishing to derail the thread, please read on...
You cannot buy bagged bituminous coal (coal) from a shop in the UK any more (unless it's extracted from and sold in the Forest of Dean) but I can buy it loose from an approved coal merchant.
There isn't a demonstrable H&S benefit because I can still buy coal and nobody is protected from my PM2.5 pollution. Instead of me popping to the local shop on my cargo bike for 20kg of coal at zero pollution, a 20T lorry belches PM2.5, PM10, nitrogen oxide, CO2, etc to deliver to my door... This isn't a true scenario and please ignore the deficiencies in the argument.
The point is that you can challenge anything, but the EA talks about religion or belief in the same sentence (section 10 of the Act).
Buddhism is a belief rather than a religion and is protected under the Act. IMHO not wearing a cycle helmet isn't a belief as intended by the Act.
"He mentioned complaining, so any cyclist not taking part due to helmet requirement could complain as a first step" is an important one and should be considered by individuals, followed by EASS and mediation if necessary.
I am not a lawyer and this is only my opinion, maybe thirdcrank could be persuaded to give his thoughts??