england-and-wales legal-terms
Does religion encompass philosophical belief in the sentencing act 2020?
<p>In other areas of law, religion is explained to encompass philosophical belief, as well as lack of religion or lack of philosophical belief.</p>
<p>Whereas s66(1)(b) of the sentencing act 2020 makes simple reference to &quot;religion,&quot; is there any basis of universalising this broader understanding of religion so that it is more broadly applicable than just in the equality act or public order act, for examples?</p>

<p>The Sentencing Act's concept of religion relates to membership of religious <em>groups</em>, not to individual beliefs. However, a group defined by lack of a religious belief would also be covered.</p>
<p>You noted the mention of “religious hostility” in s. 66(1)(b). However, further subsections provide additional context.</p>
<p>Per s. 66(4), an offence would be aggravated by religious hostility when the offender demonstrated hostility based on “the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group”, or when the offence was motivated by “hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group”.</p>
<p>Per s. 66(6)(b), “references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief”.</p>
<p>In general, philosophical opinions are not that group-defining. It would be difficult to imagine an extremist Utilitarian attacking people because they are in favour of Discourse Ethics or because they associate with Discourse Ethics proponents.</p>
<p>However, there isn't necessarily a bright line between religious beliefs and philosophical convictions, especially in the area of New Religious Movements. But similarly, there isn't a bright line between some philosophical convictions and political opinions, yet offences motivated by the victim's membership to a particular political group are <em>not</em> considered aggravated under s. 66 of the Sentencing Act. I suppose a court would have to look into the individual circumstances, also taking into account that religious beliefs are interpreted more broadly in other contexts.</p>
<p>What is clear though is that atheists are a religious group for the context of this Act, per the definition in s. 66(6)(b).</p>
<p>In the comments, you propose a theory that failure to cover some characteristics could be a violation of human rights. I don't think that works, since s. 66 of the Sentencing Act does not directly protect characteristics such as disability or membership to a religious groups. Instead, this section defines hate crimes, where motives such as racism or transphobia are an <em>aggravating factor</em> that makes things that are already illegal even worse.</p>
