Legal question on the equality act 2010

[ajb]

As Science Forums is based in the UK, and in effect it is a 'members club' is it subject to the Equality Act 2010?

 

"It is unlawful for a private club or other association to discriminate against, harass or victimise an existing or potential member or an associate."

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85018/private-clubs.pdf

 

The wording here reminds me of some complains by the quacks we see from time to time. Of course, being told you are in violation of the rules that you agreed to cannot be seen as victimisation.

 

So what does the SFN legal department have to say about this?

Edited March 15, 2015 by ajb

[imatfaal]

Section 107

(2) An “association” is an association of persons—

(a) which has at least 25 members, and

(b) admission to membership of which is regulated by the association’s

rules and involves a process of selection.

 

We have no selection process.

[studiot]

Interesting; this way

I can learn something every day.

 

[imatfaal]

---

 

I don't really know the equality act but I think the above would mean that SF.n are well and truly outwith the scope of the Act. From a cursory reading I do not believe any of our staff or membership test or breach any of the prohibitions of the Act.

[John Cuthber]

We do have a "selection" process- albeit after we let people in.

If they don't follow the rules we throw them out.

While we don't throw people out for their religious beliefs, we might be open to a challenge on the basis of indirect discrimination.

A "tall people" club might be in trouble if it had the same entry height requirement for men and women because , while it doesn't exactly stop women joining, it would make it more difficult.

 

This sort of thing is never simple once the lawyers get involved.

[StringJunky]

If this was the Mensa discussion site and you had to be a member of it to join in, would that be allowed? I'm viewing it here in this example as 'the clever people club'....which it is.

Edited March 15, 2015 by StringJunky

[Greg H.]

While we don't throw people out for their religious beliefs, we might be open to a challenge on the basis of indirect discrimination.

I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on tv), but I'm not sure the analogy holds. We're not making it difficult for people to join, nor do we make it hard for them to stay. We just ask that they follow the rules while they are here. We don't ask them to leave because they're religious - we ask people to leave because they continuously harass other members, soapbox, refuse to provide scientific evidence for their claims, or otherwise fail to follow the rules of the forum they have elected to join. Providing evidence in the course of a scientific discussion is not discrimination - it's how science works.

 

As for the purely religious discussion or even scholarly religious discussion, I have not seen the staff here eject anyone for having a religious discussion in the proper context in the proper place on the forums.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Greg H.

[imatfaal]

We do have a "selection" process- albeit after we let people in.

If they don't follow the rules we throw them out.

While we don't throw people out for their religious beliefs, we might be open to a challenge on the basis of indirect discrimination.

A "tall people" club might be in trouble if it had the same entry height requirement for men and women because , while it doesn't exactly stop women joining, it would make it more difficult.

 

This sort of thing is never simple once the lawyers get involved.

 

"admission to membership of which is regulated by the association’s rules and involves a process of selection."

 

A. we don't have a selection process - we have a set of rules that are easily followed (ie can comply by doing nothing), that do not mandate any actions merely prohibit certain things (many of which are also prohibited by the act), that are freely available to read (ie no hidden rules) etc.

 

B. Selection process would normally (although not necessarily) be positive ( a candidate must have done this, cannot have done this etc) rather than passive (all welcome unless...)

 

C. The phrase above states that the selection process is important to the reading of the Act as a part of the admission to membership - not in and of itself.

 

I haven't read the Act (let alone read it closely) - but I think it highly unlikely any of the actions of staff or membership are direct or indirect discrimination. Your example about the Tall Club is very well made and apposite - however I would consider it unlikely that anyone would be able to claim the existence of a characteristic which would mean that our rules are discriminatory in structure. I would also assume we could show that we act with propotionality in order to maintain a valid site for discussion.

----

 

If this was the Mensa discussion site and you had to be a member of it to join in, would that be allowed? I'm viewing it here in this example as 'the clever people club'....which it is.

 

The act (well the Part we are discussing) is more about what clubs must do once formed rather than their existence. Mensa exists so I guess it is able to find a way to comply with the rules. People with an average IQ are not obviously easy to pigeonhole as having one of the protected characteristics: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.

[John Cuthber]

Our rules require that people justify their claims. that's pretty much a debarment to most religion.

On the other hand, anyone taking action against us would probably also be in breach of the same rules on the basis of our non- belief.

A rule that says "all welcome unless you are under 6 feet tall" is discriminatory on grounds of sex.

A rule that says "all welcome unless you can't justify your beliefs" is discriminatory on grounds of religion.

The fact is that we (probably) turf out more theists than atheists and that puts us in a legally awkward position.

We might be asked to explain why.

Saying "they break the rules more often" isn't necessarily a valid excuse because our rules are (almost) bound to affect theists more than atheists.

It's like saying that we debarred a lot of women- not because they were women, but because they weren't 6 ft.

 

the best defence would be to point out that nobody needs to mention religion; if they did so, and can't support their case then they, knowingly, broke the rules.

[imatfaal]

Our rules require that people justify their claims. that's pretty much a debarment to most religion.

Even if the case - which I and many religious would also (maybe wrongly) argue - then it is clearly proportionate as part of running a science forum.

 

...A rule that says "all welcome unless you are under 6 feet tall" is discriminatory on grounds of sex.

A rule that says "all welcome unless you can't justify your beliefs" is discriminatory on grounds of religion...

But clearly our rules do not say anything like that - I do not understand why you continue to claim that we have bars to membership or a selection procedure; we clearly have neither.

 

The fact is that we (probably) turf out more theists than atheists and that puts us in a legally awkward position.

Firstly you have failed to show that we are in any position in which the act applies (failing basically by insisting we have a selection procedure when we do not). Secondly I would argue the statistics. Thirdly - it would have to be shown that some form of indirect discrimination is applied ( although there may be a reversal - I haven't read it yet); ie that there are rules which apply (or do not) because of characteristics which are protected. Finally, again proportionality

 

Saying "they break the rules more often" isn't necessarily a valid excuse because our rules are (almost) bound to affect theists more than atheists.

It's like saying that we debarred a lot of women- not because they were women, but because they weren't 6 ft.

Quite; but neither is is necessarily discriminatory. Our rules do not overly target theists - theists are just as able, likely, and likely to use rational and evidenced arguments when discussing matters mandated by our rules.

[John Cuthber]

What would you say about a club that let anyone join, but threw out the ones who were black?

Is that OK, because it's not an admission policy?

[studiot]

 

What would you say about a club that let anyone join, but threw out the ones who were black?

Is that OK, because it's not an admission policy?

 

 

No it is not OK, but no that is not because it's not an admissions policy.

 

I think imatfaal's point is that in order to come under the ambit of the referred Act, there must be an admissions selections procedure.

 

SF has no recognisable and identifiable selections policy or procedure, therfore does not fall within the ambit of the Act.

 

However that does not relieve SF of complying with all other relevent Acts in its subsequent dealings with members, including dismissal.

 

I do believe there are many other Acts, or even parts of the Act in question, concerning discrimination.

 

It is very common for people to think that because one Act has granted a permission, all other duties to comply with other Acts are abrogated.

I can remember constantly explaining to people that, whilst, yes they have successfully been granted Planning Permission to have a driveway, the implementation of that driveway must still be in accordance with the Highways Act and that said Highways Act contains a secon permissions process of its own.

[John Cuthber]

Allowing anyone in, then selectively banning theists is, effectively, an admissions' selection policy.

[swansont]

Allowing anyone in, then selectively banning theists is, effectively, an admissions' selection policy.

 

But we don't do that. Theists are just as welcome here as atheists or non-theists or whatever. What they can't do is simply preach. That applies to all. We don't ask what your religious inclination is. It's entirely possible we have a large theist membership who simply follow the rules.

[ajb]

So to recap...

 

We are not sure how the act applies and this may depend on the careful definition of 'selection preocess'.

 

As far as I can see we have a very open selection process; you just join. Continuing your membership relies on obeying the rules. This seems fair enough and no group is discriminated against.

 

The 'shared characteristic' of all our members is 'an interest in science' as interpreted quite widely. We could then throw out people who do not share the characteristic, and indeed we do; they tend to quickly and repeatedly break the rules.

[StringJunky]

In a sense, members are selected out on the basis of not adhering to the rules. The rules only discriminate against poor behaviour and not the characteristics protected by the Equality Act.

Edited March 16, 2015 by StringJunky

[swansont]

In a sense, members are selected out on the basis of not adhering to the rules. The rules only discriminate against poor behaviour and not the characteristics protected by the Equality Act.

 

Quite. Not all discrimination is illegal. Society discriminates on the basis of ability all the time.

[Greg H.]

In a sense, members are selected out on the basis of not adhering to the rules. The rules only discriminate against poor behaviour and not the characteristics protected by the Equality Act.

 

So basically, the staff here discriminates against members in exactly the same way as the criminal justice system discriminates against members of the larger society - if you can't follow the rules, you are first penalized, and then, if the violations continue to occur, removed from the society in question.

 

I would also like to point out that the staff does not immediately remove any member, as far as I can tell. First they are warned (often many, many times), then they are suspended, and only if they continue to violate the rules of this community are they banned.

 

Additionally, everyone is held to the same standard. I have seen folks making perfectly secular arguments suffer the same proscriptions for the same reasons - primarily a failure to demonstrate testable, scientifically based conclusions.

 

Finally, making a religiously based argument in the proper context (i.e. a discussion of religion itself in the religion section) is not against the rules of that forum, as far as I can tell, so the staff have even provided an inclusive area where religion can be discussed by those who wish to discuss it.

 

I'm not seeing how any of this could be construed as being discrimnatory, and frankly, I think it's a bit disingenous to suggest otherwise, so I have to wonder what the agenda is.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Greg H.

[StringJunky]

 

...I'm not seeing how any of this could be construed as being discrimnatory, and frankly, I think it's a bit disingenous to suggest otherwise, so I have to wonder what the agenda is.

The trouble with science is you just can't make stuff up and expect to get a pat on the back for showing imagination; this is may be what irks some people. The rules of discourse that science holds dear are not those of normal everyday society, so it can be quite a shock to stick your head in here!

[Greg H.]

The trouble with science is you just can't make stuff up and expect to get a pat on the back for showing imagination; this is may be what irks some people. The rules of discourse that science holds dear are not those of normal everyday society, so it can be quite a shock to stick your head in here!

I admit there is a bit of culture shock, but it's not like the rules are ambiguous, obfuscated, or otherwise hidden from plain view.

 

If you make a scientific claim, provide your reasoning.

It's no different from the old "Make sure to show your work" from math classes.

 

It's also not, in any way, discrimnatory. If you don't make a scientific claim, you won't be held to that standard. If I post a thread in the Lounge about the kinds of Artisan Cheeses that taste the best, I don't expect anyone to come over and ask me for evidence. It's obvious it's an opinion thread, both from the title and placement.

 

If I posted the exact same thread in the psychology section (along the lines of maybe theres a chemical reason why one tastes best to most people) I would exepect, and rightly so, that I might be asked to cite sources that my initial premise is even valid (that a specific kind is considered best by the majority of the people).

 

Context is as important as content.