A UK employment tribunal has unanimously ruled that anti-Zionism qualifies as a protected philosophical belief under equality law, in a landmark judgment with potentially far-reaching implications.
The Bristol Employment Tribunal found that Professor David Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs were “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and met the legal criteria to be considered a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
The three-person panel, led by Regional Employment Judge Pirani, concluded that Miller’s belief that “Zionism is inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial” and “ought therefore to be opposed”.
In its judgment, the tribunal stated: “We find that the claimant has established that the Grainger criteria have been met and that his belief amounted to a philosophical belief as defined by section 10 EqA [Equality Act].”
The Grainger criteria, established in the 2010 case of Grainger plc v Nicholson, are a set of five tests used to determine whether a belief qualifies for protection under UK equality law. These criteria require that a belief must be genuinely held, be more than just an opinion, relate to a weighty aspect of human life, have a certain level of cogency and importance and be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
The ruling came as part of a wider case brought by Miller against the University of Bristol for unfair dismissal and discrimination. In February, the tribunal ruled that the academic was wrongfully fired for anti-Zionist views.
The tribunal has now published its 120-page judgment setting out why Miller’s beliefs warranted protection under anti-discrimination laws
The decision marks a major development in debates around anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Advocates of Israel have long sought to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, arguing that opposition to Zionism is inherently discriminatory. The highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which critics say conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, has been used by various institutions to restrict pro-Palestinian activism.
The tribunal’s ruling that anti-Zionism is a protected belief provides legal protection for those expressing criticism of Israel and Zionism. Moreover, the judgement has made a clear distinction between the political ideology of Zionism and anti-Jewish racism.
The judgment could have wide-ranging implications for how universities, employers and public bodies handle debates and activism around Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. Successive governments have used the IHRA to supress criticism of Israel in the name of fighting anti-Semitism.
Source: middleeastmonitor
