I’ve never thought that attacking someone’s opinions could possibly be put in the same category as racist abuse. I was taught to believe that people should never be criticised or ridiculed for characteristics they are born with — but at the same time, in a liberal society, ideas and beliefs people happen to hold should be fair game.

The Equality Act, apparently, disagrees.

Today, if you profess to hold an opinion deeply enough, that “belief” is granted the same protection in law as the colour of your skin.

This week we learned that the Green Party has had to stump up over £1 million from party coffers fighting its own members. A slew of claims have been brought by Greens who identify as “gender critical”, claiming discrimination within the party for their ideas. Most notably among them is former policing spokesman Shahrar Ali, who felt forced out from his position as a spokesman.

You might think that a political party has every right to discriminate against someone for their beliefs. A conservative political party, you might think, should not have to promote people with liberal ideas. And a leftist political party, you would imagine, should be free to criticise members with views they may deem to be conservative.

Yet gender critical Ali took his party to court, and received a £90,000 payout plus £9,100 in damages.

His case rested on the fact that the Equality Act lists “religion or belief” amongst its nine “protected characteristics” — which also include the more traditionally expected hardwired attributes such as age or race.

It’s the word “belief” that is doing the heavy lifting in all these cases against the Greens.

Section 10 of the Equality Act helpfully defines “belief” here as “any religious or philosophical belief [or] lack of belief.” So that’s that then.

In the case of Shahrar Ali, presiding Judge Hellman found Dr Ali to “hold a gender critical belief”, and noted that “it is and was at all material times a protected belief within the meaning of section 10 of the EA [Equality Act].”

Ali contended that people in his political party were mean to him on Twitter, that he was not promoted as a spokesman, that The Warrington & Halton Green Party wrote an open letter calling him transphobic, and that the executive of the Green Party did not support him.

And because his gender critical political philosophy is deemed to be a protected characteristic, it must be accepted by this political party that clearly wants nothing to do with it.

It doesn’t take a genius to see how this could be weaponised in the opposite direction.

Political parties, one might think, should have every right to discriminate against beliefs, philosophies or ideas. That’s sort of the point of them. They exist to say some ideas are good, and others would be better off marginalised.

But it’s not just political parties. We have seen this “belief” characteristic weaponised before.

Indeed, this same tactic is how anti-Brexit activist Shahmir Sanni was able to lodge an employment tribunal claim against the Taxpayers’ Alliance in 2018, which fired the publicity hungry “whistleblower” after he told management he was working on a new anti-Brexit campaign alongside the Observer and Carole Cadwalladr.

Sanni was able to force the TPA into conceding unfair dismissal. How? He claimed his anti-Brexit campaign work was covered by the “belief” clause in the Equality Act as his suit alleged “because of his belief that protecting the integrity and sanctity of British democracy from taint and corruption was paramount”.

And that’s not all.

Vegan activist Jordi Casamitjana was fired from his job at The League Against Cruel Sports after sharing internal information about his employers’ pension investments without authorisation. He revealed that the company’s pension funds invested in companies tangentially involved in animal testing.

He managed to win his case that his “ethical veganism” was protected by the Equality Act.

In Casamitjana v The League Against Cruel Sports, the preliminary hearing was told that Mr. Casamitjana’s “belief” was deeply held because he “would not visit or attend zoos”, “has not dated anyone who was not a vegan”, and “If the Claimant’s destination is within an hour walking distance he would normally walk there to avoid accidental crashes with insects or birds when taking a bus or public transport”.

Ethical veganism was therefore declared protected, and his sacking deemed discriminatory on the grounds of philosophical belief. (The League Against Cruel Sports later settled with Mr. Casamitjana and accepted blame.)

So what have we learned?

That Equality Act now means you can share confidential financial material about the firm that employs you provided you avoid taking buses for fear they might hit a fly.

That the Equality Act now means right of centre campaigns must continue to employ you if you simultaneously launch a left wing campaign with the Guardian.

That the Equality Act now means political parties must promote and defend members who fundamentally disagree with that party’s own social policy.

The no doubt well intentioned Equality Act has today become an infiltrators’ charter. Compelling the actions of private organisations and political parties to accommodate people with whom they philosophically disagree. Far from protecting immutable characteristics, the Act “protects” philosophical ideas. In short, being mean to a vegan is now as legally on a par with racist discrimination.

Just wait until the Scientologists catch wind of this.