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'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' 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. If the answer is not yes, then the IFoA's explanation will make interesting reading.

Members must not commit crimes, must speak up about crimes, so why shouldn'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.

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'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'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' Code/being on Council, even on a personal basis. By exercising my right of reply to their challenges, I fell foul of the IFoA's "no conversations with @actuarynews in on taboo topics" rule, which I didn'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'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's handle in. b) I don't think it is particularly effective: the blocking doesn't stop the twitter handle being included in a post 5/

c) It effectively prohibits any discussion about the organisation's right to limit its members' freedom of speech in the "taboo" topics which don't seem to be listed (so you only know you'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.