united-kingdom legal-terms religion
What does “belief” mean in the context of The Equalities Act 2010?
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Equalities Act of 2010</a> (applicable in England, Scotland and Wales) says at <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 10 (in part)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Belief means any religious or philosophical belief; and a reference to
  belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It goes on to describe, in <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 26</a>, harassment which includes the following:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A person (A) harasses another (B) - if A engages in unwanted conduct
  related to a relevant characteristic, and the conduct has the purpose
  or effect of violating B’s dignity or creating an intimidating,
  hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This seems quite broad. Would a belief that all female short lists are ethical be considered a belief in terms of this act? Or indeed a belief such as “the sky is not blue”? Or indeed <em>any</em> idea subscribed to.</p>

<p>If I was to argue with a coworker that the sky is not red but blue, and he takes offense, am I breaking the law?</p>

<p>The key limiting factors are the language: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>and the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating B’s dignity or
  creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive
  environment for B.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And, also, the context of the term "belief" in the statute in conjunction with religion which is defined in the same section, which suggests that in this context it is intended to be understood as the kind of belief that constitutes a core worldview for a person, even if it is secular (e.g. Confucianism or a Stoic philosophy of life), rather than isolated particular ideas about factual things.</p>

<p>There is also considerable room for judicial interpretation over whether, for example "effect of" is limited to an "effect" reasonably derived from the "conduct" in question. </p>

<p>Still, in general, the U.K., has higher standards mandating civility in dealings with others than the U.S., and there is lots of conduct barred by the Equality Act of 2010 which would not be barred under U.S. law, for example.</p>

<p>The closest analog in U.S. law is really the tort of "<a href="http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">outrageous conduct</a>" also sometimes known as "intentional infliction of emotional distress."</p>
