EAT Rules Anti-Zionism Protected Belief in David Miller Victory

A landmark ruling by the UK’s Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected under the Equality Act. The EAT overturned the University of Bristol’s appeal against an earlier Employment Tribunal decision, which found that the dismissal of Professor David Miller due to his outspoken anti-Zionism constituted unlawful discrimination and unfair dismissal.
This victory for free speech advocates, particularly concerning discussions about Palestine, stems from the EAT’s decision to uphold the tribunal’s finding that Miller’s beliefs were indeed a protected philosophical conviction. The court emphasized that the manifestation of these beliefs played a significant role in the university’s decision to terminate his employment, meaning his dismissal was directly linked to his protected views.
The ruling establishes that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone holding the belief that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial, and therefore ought to be opposed. Professor Miller, specializing in political sociology and propaganda studies, faced a sustained campaign from the university following his vocal criticism of Israel, Zionism, and pro-Israel lobbying groups. His dismissal in October 2021 was challenged, leading to a seven-day Employment Tribunal hearing in 2023.
The EAT scrutinized the University of Bristol’s appeal on nine grounds but rejected almost all arguments, reinforcing the original tribunal’s conclusions. A key finding was that the university’s decision to dismiss Miller was demonstrably affected by the material impact of his anti-Zionist statements, which formed a protected belief system. The court noted the university’s acceptance of this point in its initial appeal submissions.
This judgment also reaffirms the importance of freedom of expression in political contexts. The EAT highlighted that courts must be mindful of protecting free speech, especially in cases involving political ideology. The university’s initial contention that Miller’s views were merely political opinions, not protected philosophical beliefs, was firmly rejected by the appeal judges.
In a notable passage, the EAT itself described Zionism coherently as “racist,” “colonial,” and “imperialistic,” stating that an ideology promoting a state for one race in territory inhabited by another people could be legitimately characterized in those terms. This description underscores the core of the conflict and the nature of the beliefs held by Miller and his supporters.

Source: Read the original report