In a recent decision, which might turn out be a rogue one (sorry), The Charity Commission, the independent regulator and registrar of charities in England and Wales, rejected an application for registration by The Temple of the Jedi Order, ruling instead that Jediism, the worship of the mythology of Star Wars, is not a religion.
The Commission decided that Jediism did not “promote moral or ethical improvement” for charity law purposes in England and Wales, and “lacked the necessary spiritual or non-secular element” it was looking for in a religion, finding that there was insufficient evidence that “moral improvement” was central to the beliefs and practices of Jediism and did not have the “cogency, cohesion, or seriousness” to truly be a belief system. In a further conclusion betraying, perhaps, a more (in)sidious approach, the Commission raised concerns that Jediism may, in part, have an “inward focus” on its members (who, after all, have more midi-chlorians than the rest of us).
Whilst some might argue that such thinking belongs a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, it caused me to reflect on other legally-related arguments regarding religion and belief.
Religion or belief is one of the nine “protected characteristics” covered by the Equality Act 2010; “Religion” meaning any religion, including a reference to a lack of religion, and “Belief” meaning any religious or philosophical belief, including a reference to a lack of belief. Direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation based on religion or belief are all generally unlawful under the Act (subject to certain exceptions). So what interesting decisions have been reached?
In Grainger plc and others v Nicholson [2010], the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a judgment that a genuine belief in climate change constituted a philosophical belief, equally in Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Ltd t/a Orchard Park [2009] a fervent (not fur-vent) anti-fox hunting and anti-hare coursing belief qualified for protection. Even “a profound belief in the proper and efficient use of public money in the public sector” could, depending on the facts of the case, be protected as a philosophical belief (Harron v Dorset Police [2015]). Until now, the courts have withheld from finding that any particular political belief qualifies as a protected philosophical belief, however, this has been suggested as possible in principle (see Nicholson).
So where does this leave the Rebellion? Well, whilst The Temple of the Jedi Order may have been vanquished by The Charity Commission, there is a chance (perhaps more than one in a million, kid) that Jedi with jobs or working Wookies might be able to (en)force their rights should they face unlawful discrimination…but then again, perhaps it’s a trap?
Darth Paul
Please share the article
