I have always thought that there is something Orwellian about the title of the Equality Act in that the statute actually deals with the law on discrimination. I was reminded of this thought when reading the latest work by Paul Weller and his colleagues, the title of which seems designed to produce optimum results from internet search engines. Weller, a Professor of Inter-Religious Relations at the University of Derby, has produced a number of important works on areas that are of interest to law and religion academics but which examine familiar topics from new non-legal angles. His work deserves a larger readership from both academic and practising lawyers and this is especially true of this most recent volume.

Religion or Belief, Discrimination and Equality is informed by a research project led by Weller in 2010–2012 and funded by the AHRC/ESRC Religion and Society programme. This research project followed up on previous Home Office-commissioned research conducted by Weller and his colleagues in 1999–2000. Both pieces of research sought to provide an empirical evidence base with regard to religious discrimination in Britain in the twenty-first century, employing a ‘mixed methods approach’ which included questionnaires, interviews and focus groups alongside a systematic review of relevant research and, in the case of the latest project, the relevant legal cases. This in itself is worthy of comment: a major difference between 1999–2000 and 2010–2012 was not only the emergence of a jurisprudence concerning the Equality Act 2010 and its precursors but also an astonishing growth in litigation on religious matters generally. Although it is possible to overplay this significant change (which I have referred to as ‘the juridification of religion’), this development needs to be kept in mind by anyone who is trying to understand the relationship between religion and the law today.

The significant legislation and litigation of recent years has, however, meant that many commentators have been seduced by the danger of ‘presentism’, a privileging of the present which ignores or downplays the importance of history. It is to Weller et al's credit that they do not succumb to this temptation. Instead, their second chapter examines ‘Historical perspectives’, arguing that the historical experience of Christian minorities, Jews and atheists provides a prefiguration of contemporary issues. Although wide ranging, their account emphasises aspects of nineteenth-century ‘discrimination’. This means that the chapter is light on other aspects such as the importance of the Reformation and the historical development of the established Church. However, these are minor quibbles and it is to the chapter's credit that it deals with a number of topics such as Northern Ireland which standard legal texts invariably omit.

Similarly, Chapter 3 does an admirable job of surveying the ‘Contemporary context’, discussing the importance of international legislation, church–state relations in each nation of the UK and statistics about religious self-identification. The succinct nature of the chapter may lead to one or two quibbles but is also a strength in that much ground is covered very quickly. Chapter 4 provides a similar service surveying the domestic legal changes. Its title, ‘The law: a decade of continuity and change’, could itself provoke a rather intriguing examination question. The focus of the book then shifts to examine in more detail the team's research findings. The fifth chapter provides the obligatory description of methodology without being too dry, while Chapters 6, 7 and 8 provide the evidence gathered from questionnaires, fieldwork interviews and focus groups. They are structured on particular ‘experiences of unfair treatment’ – so Chapter 6, for instance, focuses on ‘Experience of unfair treatment in education, employment and the media’ – and each chapter provides first-hand insights into the lived experiences of religious or belief discrimination. While law reports themselves provide a window into the law in action, these empirical findings show pressure points and concerns which were previously hidden. In relation to education, for example, the team find concerns from the Baha'i about the release of children on holy days, from Pagans that they are denied any recognition and from Muslims that the RE curriculum fails to differentiate properly between the different schools of thought within Islam. There is much in these chapters which should inform policy-makers, employers and those who provide guidance.

The final two chapters bring together the empirical findings with the historical, contemporary and legal contexts explored in the previous chapters. There are some positive and encouraging findings: for example, that the last decade has seen a reduction in the reported experiences of unfair treatment on the grounds of religion or belief, probably as a result in changes of policy and practice, and particularly in the public sector as a result of the new legal framework. However, there is no room for complacency: the authors point out that there remain substantial levels of reporting of unfair treatment and that Muslim, Pagan, New Religious Movements and Jews continue to experience higher levels of unfair treatment than other religious groups. Weller et al conclude that ‘the new introduction of laws has not been a panacea’, pointing out that respondents were often unaware of their new legal rights and that many participants of religious focus groups felt that the laws did not work equally for them.

Religion or Belief, Discrimination and Equality merits reading as a complement to rather than as a replacement for legal texts. Those seeking a technical black-letter exploration of the case law need to look elsewhere and are likely to be baffled by some of the findings, such as the survey question which collected views on the ‘helpfulness’ of the new legislation, with respondents mostly regarding pieces of legislation, such as the Human Rights Act and the now repealed Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, as being ‘somewhat helpful’ or ‘neither helpful or unhelpful’. However, most of the findings will fascinate all those interested in the interaction of law and religion. For instance, Weller et al provide those writing about the religious exceptions found in discrimination law with empirical evidence to support the inclusion and reach of such exceptions. In short, this is an important, innovative work which deserves to be digested by those concerned with the application and analysis of the law.