Anti-Judaism becomes a protected characteristic
A tribunal ruling has effectively declared open season on Jewish students
Appallingly, a British employment tribunal has ruled that anti-Zionism — the contemporary iteration of antisemitism — is a “protected characteristic” that must therefore be given special protection in law.
Sociology professor Dr David Miller was fired by Bristol university in 2021 after a series of virulent ant-Zionist and antisemitic statements which had made Jewish students on campus feel “uncomfortable and intimidated”.
In a ruling handed down yesterday by Judge Rohan Pirani (also discussed here), the Bristol employment tribunal ruled that Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a “philosophical belief” and thus a “protected characteristic” under the Equality Act 2010. It found that because of these beliefs, Miller was subject to direct discrimination when the university fired him and he was unjustly dismissed.
This really is nonsense on stilts. “Protected characteristics,” as set out in this equality law, cover religion and belief. “Belief,” it states, “means any religious or philosophical belief, and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.”
So what’s a “philosophical belief”? The tribunal used the definition provided in a previous case. That had ruled that it must not be “an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;” “it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance;” and it must be “worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others”.
And so what was Miller’s belief that fitted these criteria? He told the tribunal:
I have at all times …believed Zionism to be a settler-colonial and ethno-nationalist movement that seeks to assert Jewish hegemony and political control over the land of historic Palestine.
That is not a philosophical belief but a political or ideological viewpoint. It therefore does not fall within the criteria for protected characteristics. Yet the tribunal said it did, and this was why:
The claimant is and was a committed anti-Zionist and his views on this topic have played a significant a significant role in his life for many years. His views were deeply held and not amenable to change…We conclude that the claimant’s account as to the nature of Zionism is at least coherent and cogent. The claimant is an academic with expertise in Zionism and the Zionist movement. He referred to numerous academic works in his evidence which support his view of the nature of Zionism. Of course, we do not endorse or comment on this analysis in any way, other than to conclude that it is at least tenable and coherent.
But the fact that Miller held firmly to this viewpoint, that it was very important to him and that he had read other people with the same viewpoint does not turn that viewpoint into a philosophical belief. It remains merely a viewpoint.
It also falls foul of another element of the law’s definition.
Opposing Zionism is to oppose the fundamental right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their historic homeland. That belief in territorial nationhood — which was a historic fact in ancient times — is fundamental to the religion of Judaism. Anti-Zionism is therefore an attack on Judaism itself. It thus puts a target on the backs of all Jews, whether or not they consider themselves to be Zionists.
Miller’s viewpoint therefore demonstrably conflicts with the requirement of a protected characteristic that it “be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others”.
And since anti-Zionism is fundamentally anti-Judaism, the tribunal has in effect turned antisemitism into a protected characteristic.
In any event, the ruling is based on an even more fundamental false premise. Bristol university didn’t fire Miller because of his views. It fired him because of his behaviour.
In an “on the record” email to Ben Bloch, the student news editor of The Bristol Tab university newspaper, Miller said:
Zionism is and always has been a racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing. It is an endemically anti-Arab and Islamophobic ideology. It has no place in any society.
He accused the Union of Jewish Students of causing Islamophobia and posing a threat to Muslim students and all critics of Israel. He wrote:
There is a real question of abuse here, of Jewish students on British campuses being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing.
The tribunal found Miller’s “culpable and blameworthy” comments about students at the university so objectionable that it halved his compensation for unjust dismissal. It also said there was a 30 per cent chance that he would have been fairly dismissed after he wrote on social media that “Judeophobia barely exists these days”, that “Jews are not discriminated against,” and that “they are over-represented in Europe, North America and Latin America in positions of cultural, economic and political power” so that they were in a position to discriminate against others.
Nevertheless, the university cleared Miller twice of antisemitism. It was Miller who claimed that he was being hounded by “Zionists” because of his views. But the university didn’t find that. It didn’t fire him because of his views about Jews or Israel. In its disciplinary hearing in September 2021, it found that his actions towards students amounted to gross misconduct for which he should be fired.
The hearing was conducted by the Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the time, Professor Jane Norman. In her dismissal notice, she made no reference to Miller’s anti-Zionism. She concluded instead that his sackable offence was to have grossly breached the university’s rules of conduct.
She told him “you are fully entitled to your views and beliefs,” but the way he expressed them showed lack of “responsibility, diligence and care” and were “wrong and inappropriate”. He had singled out students and their societies for criticism which was an “abuse of power”; he had connected one such society to “violence, racism, ethnic cleansing and making other protected groups feel unsafe”; his tone had been “inappropriate” because he had been “seeking to proselytise and convert others” to his cause “and/or to provoke a public reaction”; and he had not shown “any shred of insight into why others might have found your words reprehensible”.
So if Miller was fired for his behaviour, why did the tribunal rule that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of his anti-Zionist beliefs? The tribunal claimed that because Miller’s statements which Professor Norman decided were unacceptable articulated his anti-Zionist views, it was those views that amounted to misconduct in Professor Norman’s mind. But since Professor Norman didn’t discuss those views and had ruled instead entirely on how Miller had articulated them, the tribunal’s claim to know what was actually inside Professor Norman’s head is as presumptuous as it is unsustainable.
One has to ask, therefore, why the tribunal was so keen to make anti-Zionism the central element of its ruling.
After it was published Miller, who now works for Press TV — owned by antisemitic and genocidal Iran — doubled down on his virulent bigotry. He gloated:
This is not just a victory for me, but also a victory for pro-Palestine campaigners across Britain…I hope this case will become a touchstone precedent in all the future battles that we face with the racist and genocidal ideology of Zionism and the movement to which it is attached…
This verdict is also a vindication of the approach I have taken throughout this period, which is to say that a genocidal and maximalist Zionism can only be effectively confronted by a maximalist anti-Zionism. The self-justifying and defensive approach of the sort illustrated by many on the left and even in the Palestine Solidarity movement will not work. The Zionist movement cannot be negotiated with. It must be defeated…
Now we need to spread the campaign to dismantle Zionism all around the world — wherever the Zionist movement raises its ugly head.
Through this deeply troubling ruling, the tribunal has in effect declared open season on Jewish students. More broadly, the category of “protected characteristics” was always likely to become a hostage to fortune by protecting abuses of power and throwing the victims to the wolves. The Bristol tribunal’s ruling is yet another example of the way in which the whole panoply of equality, anti-discrimination and human rights law has turned into a weapon against civilisation.
Recent posts
My most recent exclusive post for my premium subscribers argues that the MP Mike Freer has been forced out of political life by forces that threaten British society. This is how the piece begins:
Britain’s social emergency
You can read my most recent post that’s available to everyone, on how America and Britain are crossing a treacherous red line, if you click here.
And you can access the links to all my work by visiting my website here.
One more thing…
This is how my email posts work.
There are two subscription levels: my free service and my premium service.
Anyone can sign up to the free service on this website. You can of course unsubscribe at any time by clicking “unsubscribe” at the foot of each email.
Everyone on the free list will receive the full text of pieces I write for outlets such as the Jewish News Syndicate and the Jewish Chronicle, as well as other posts and links to my broadcasting and video work.
But why not subscribe to my premium service? For that you’ll also receive pieces that I write specially for my premium subscribers. Those articles will not be published elsewhere. They’ll arrive in your inbox as soon as I have written them.
There is a monthly fee of $6.99 for the premium service, or $70 for an annual subscription. Although the fee is charged in US dollars, you can sign up with any credit card. Just click on the “subscribe now” button below to see the available options for subscribing either to the premium or the free service.
A final point…
If you purchase a subscription to my site, you will be authorising a payment to my company Dirah Associates. In the past, that is the name that may have appeared on your credit card statement. In future, though, the charge should appear instead as Melanie Phillips.
And thank you for following my work.