Read on Twitter
Important #FreedomOfSpeech thread for any actuary or member of any professional body.This should not need clarifying, but sadly it seems it does because 4 individuals, including 2 anonymous ones are objecting strongly to this. I am repeating here a question put yesterday to IFoA.
The question is slightly expanded for clarification and is for my professional body the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA, @actuarynews). cc @NatSecSoc @SpeechUnion @DouglasKMurray
@actuarynews: please confirm that any of your members may criticise any religious text that advocates or condones any of the following:slavery, rape, child sex, wife beating, ordering the amputation or blinding of healthy people, burning people to death, stoning, crucifixion #FGM
(I& #39;ll add that although in my situation I have made such criticisms in a personal capacity, given the seriousness of the crimes listed, there should be no problem with anyone criticising them in a professional or official capacity).
Putting it politely, given that the actions described are serious crimes in the UK & most (all) countries in which the IFoA operates, I am v surprised not to have received your answer @actuarynews? Especially as we have been here before & a clear approach was agreed in 2014...
Still no answer & now I see that I am blocked by @actuarynews! I shall continue asking for an answer to this question. #FreeSpeech is fundamentally important in a democracy cc @SpeechUnion @Humanists_UK @DouglasKMurray
I should clarify that from an email received yesterday while I was travelling the blocking seems to be not due to this thread but to the IFoA claiming that some (as yet unspecified) tweets of mine in 4 other threads breach their social media terms (in as yet unspecified ways).
I have asked for clarification as soon as possible so that I can understand precisely what the alleged breaches are.
I am changing my Twitter name to Free Speech Actuary for the time being (at least until this issue has been resolved).
To the many IFoA staff & volunteers that I know: I respect & value you highly, having worked as a volunteer (Council & Mgt Board) with many of you for several years. I hate having to speak up about this/be in conflict with you. 1/2
But for a member of any professional body, the freedom to criticise bad things is a red line for me & to me it would be a breach of principles 1 (integrity) & 5 (speaking up) of the Actuaries& #39; Code not to be able to do this,at a minimum in a personal capacity. Best w to u all 2/2
Two days (actually nearly 3 since the original question was put on another thread) & *still no answer* from the IFoA to what to me is a very easy question: https://twitter.com/pjlee01/status/1298524393618972672?s=20.">https://twitter.com/pjlee01/s... If the answer is not yes, then the IFoA& #39;s explanation will make interesting reading.
Members must not commit crimes, must speak up about crimes, so why shouldn& #39;t they be allowed to speak up about religious texts which inspire or condone crimes? #FreeSpeechMatters
This is a case in point, where a 9 year old girl was dragged off to "marry" a 60 year old man. https://twitter.com/pjlee01/status/1299343746757210114?s=20.">https://twitter.com/pjlee01/s...
It appears (I am awaiting urgent clarification from them) that the IFoA objects to my criticising a religious text which condones (arguably encourages) child marriage & child sex. That it might even be a *disciplinary offence* for me to quote or criticise this text! @SpeechUnion
Regarding the blocking, it is a 2 week suspension, which it was explained to me yesterday was for the following reason: there are certain topics (including apparently criticising Islam & possibly other religions) which the IFoA doesn& #39;t want its Twitter handle ( @actuarynews) 1/
to appear in. The IFoA apparently blocks anyone who takes part in such threads. In the case of the 4 threads listed in the email explaining my blocking, I hadn& #39;t brought @actuarynews in, but the 4 offended ones had, complaining that my criticisms of Islam were incompatible /2
(in their view) with the Actuaries& #39; Code/being on Council, even on a personal basis. By exercising my right of reply to their challenges, I fell foul of the IFoA& #39;s "no conversations with @actuarynews in on taboo topics" rule, which I didn& #39;t know about. 3/
(The "taboo topics" is my phrase as a shorthand for what was described to me - verbally - as being topics that the IFoA doesn& #39;t want its handle to be involved in). When this blocking policy was explained to me yesterday this sounded not unreasonable. But on reflection 4/
it can be problematic: a) As in my situation above, it denies individuals the right of reply when someone else has already brought the organisation& #39;s handle in. b) I don& #39;t think it is particularly effective: the blocking doesn& #39;t stop the twitter handle being included in a post 5/
c) It effectively prohibits any discussion about the organisation& #39;s right to limit its members& #39; freedom of speech in the "taboo" topics which don& #39;t seem to be listed (so you only know you& #39;ve stepped on a mine after it blows up!) 6/
d) it probably means this thread (which I started before I knew of the policy to block unlisted "taboo" topics) might itself fall foul of this blocking rule! So I respectfully suggest it be reviewed & made far clearer.
