Politics
Lawyers’ statement on Miller’s anti-Zionism win shows Bristol appeal smashed
Academic David Miller’s explosive win this morning against Bristol University’s attempt to overturn an employment tribunal finding has shown how comprehensively the university’s appeal was defeated.
The university sacked anti-Zionist professor Miller after an Israel lobby pressure campaign. To do so, it ignored two separate investigations by its own lawyers that concluded Miller had said nothing antisemitic in his critiques of Zionism and Israel lobby pressure.
Comprehensive failure
But to justify its appeal, the university put together a Byzantine document. It contained nine ‘grounds of appeal’, most of which were subdivided into smaller grounds – and some of those divided again. Yet every single one was rejected this morning by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The win enshrines anti-Zionism as protected belief under equality law – and as legal precedent in future court cases.
A new statement by Miller’s lawyers Rahman Lowe reveals just how far the university went to try to rescue its right to sack employees for opposing Israel – and how badly it failed (emphases added):
The EAT upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal and concluded that Dr Miller was discriminated against because of his philosophical belief that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial, and ought to be opposed. The EAT held that his anti-Zionist beliefs constitute a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA); he was dismissed because he manifested those beliefs and as the dismissal was tainted by discrimination, he was unfairly dismissed.
This means that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they hold those beliefs. The successful appeal outcome reinforces that controversial beliefs are not excluded from protection under the EqA simply because they generate complaints or public controversy.
Background
Dr Miller is a renowned sociologist, specialising in state and corporate propaganda, public relations and lobbying. He was employed by the University as a Professor of Political Sociology, and he continued working for the University until he was unfairly dismissed on 1 October 2021 for alleged gross misconduct.
…
Dr Miller believes that the Zionist movement comes at the expense of equal rights for Palestinians. He strongly believes that political Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist and ought to be opposed.
He appealed against his dismissal, but the appeal did not succeed. He then brought claims in the Employment Tribunal of:
- direct philosophical belief discrimination contrary to sections 10 and 13 of the EqA;
- harassment related to belief contrary to section 26 EqA;
- unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”); and
- wrongful dismissal at common law.
Employment Tribunal decision
Having heard evidence over seven days in October and November 2023, the Tribunal concluded that Dr Miller was dismissed because of his philosophical beliefs that were protected under the EqA. His dismissal was found to be discriminatory and unfair, as well as wrongful, because it was without notice.
The University appealed the decision and advanced nine grounds of appeal, which the EAT referred to as being “very lengthy because the majority of them contain multiple sub-grounds (and, in some cases, sub-sub-grounds) each of which alleges a separate error of law”.
Employment Appeal Tribunal decision
The EAT dismissed the University’s appeal and held that Dr Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief under the EqA. In particular, the EAT held that the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the expression of his beliefs about Zionism had a “material impact” upon the decision to dismiss, and he was thus dismissed “because of” the manifestation of his beliefs.
The EAT confirmed that an important free-speech principle that any court or tribunal must have at the forefront of its mind in considering a case involving the expression or manifestation of belief is that: the protection of freedom of speech is particularly important in the case of ‘political speech’- that is, expression of opinion on matters of public and political interest.
Zionism ‘coherently’ confirmed as racism
The EAT continued by confirming that to describe Zionism as racism is not merely opinion, but a “coherent” belief – a finding that is sure to have Israel’s ‘friends of genocide’ supporters frothing at the mouth. And the university was reminded that it had already admitted Miller had done nothing antisemitic:
The EAT rejected the University’s argument that David Miller’s beliefs were political and merely opinions. On the contrary, the EAT found that “it is coherent to describe as “racist” an ideology [Zionism] that promotes the establishment of a state [in this case, Israel] for only one race of people [Jewish] in a territory that formerly contained a large number of people of a different race [Palestinians]. Such an ideology, which supports the migration of members of the first group into the territory with the support of an imperial power to dislodge an indigenous population, could also coherently be described as colonial and imperialistic”.
The University’s attempts to re-litigate factual issues and assert that Dr Miller’s true beliefs were something entirely different, were also dismissed on the basis that the University had agreed at the Tribunal that it was not its position that anything Dr Miller said or done was antisemitic.
The EAT slapped down the university’s attacks and legal arguments against the original Tribunal’s decision amounted to nothing more than, basically, being a bad loser – “no more than expressions of disagreement”. And it rejected entirely Bristol’s attempt to have Miller’s compensation for wrongful dismissal cut to zero – an argument described as “not competent”:
The EAT also upheld the finding of the Tribunal that Dr Miller “did not oppose or hold antipathy towards Jews or Judaism”, and that he was not supportive of or “open to” the use of violence as a means of opposing Zionism.
With respect to the University’s contention that the Tribunal had failed to apply the correct proportionality test as set out in the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School [2023] ICR 1072, the
EAT strongly rejected this argument and stated: “The litany of criticisms levelled by the appellant at the Tribunal’s decision on proportionality (comprising seven “headline” points and thirty separate sub-points) are ultimately no more than expressions of disagreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal and an attempt to re-try the issue of proportionality.
The University also argued that any compensation awarded for the direct discrimination claim should be reduced by 100%. The EAT rejected this ground as “not competent”, because the Tribunal had expressly reserved the issue of compensation in the discrimination claims to a later remedy hearing which is yet to take place.
The only issue on which the university received a reprieve on its total humiliation was its claim that Miller might have been lawfully sacked later because of his social media posts. The EAT did not agree – and said it couldn’t see how Bristol had worked it out – but sent the issue back to the Tribunal to think about during the decision about what remedies the uni must make to Miller for its unlawful conduct:
The only ground of appeal that was allowed to proceed was in relation to the Tribunal’s findings that there was a 30% chance that Dr. Miller’s employment may have terminated in or around October 2023 with respect to Tweets he had posted in August 2023. The EAT found that it was not clear to them on what basis the Tribunal concluded that there was a chance of a lawful dismissal as a result of the August 2023 Tweets or, if there was, that the degree of that chance was 30%.
This issue has therefore been remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration during the remedy hearing.
Miller’s lawyer Zillur Rahman congratulated his client for his “comprehensive victory” and noted the precedent it set:
This is a comprehensive victory. Dr Miller’s belief that Zionism is inherently racist, has now been recognised by a binding appellate authority as a protected philosophical belief. We are proud to have played a part in securing recognition of the legal right to hold that belief and hope this judgment will provide reassurance and guidance for others in the future.
I am once again delighted for our client, David, who has now been vindicated for a second time. We look forward to assisting him in the next stage of the proceedings and in securing the maximum compensation to which he is entitled to, and which has been delayed because of the University’s appeal.
Miller, in turn, thanked his legal team and the many people who had supported his fight.
Implications after Miller
The statement then concludes by outlining the legal significance of the win:
Implications
The case has implications for every employer dealing with religion and belief issues at work. The judgment reinforces the principle that equality laws exist to protect unpopular beliefs just as much as popular ones, and protects workers from discrimination because of those beliefs.
Anti-Zionism is now a protected philosophical belief under the EqA, and therefore protected in the workplace. Employers should ensure that employees are not bullied, harassed, or subjected to any detriments because of their beliefs, even if their views are offensive or disturbing, so long as they have good reason for expressing them and their beliefs are worthy of respect. As the EAT (Choudhury P) observed in Forstater [2021], “beliefs that are offensive, shocking or even disturbing to others, and which fall into the less grave forms of hate speech would not be excluded from the protection”.
Both the Tribunal and EAT found that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the many statements Dr Miller made about Zionism. The case demonstrates that beliefs that may be considered offensive to others may nonetheless be protected under the EqA , and therefore, employers and regulators must take care to be even-handed. They must also ensure that they do not bow to pressure from third parties, including lobby groups, who wish to stifle free speech, academic debate and human rights issues.
The UK Israel lobby will, of course, have no regard to the law against its war on those who expose and oppose Israel’s genocide and endless crimes. But employers and other organisations it tries to bully into obedience against humanitarians will now face far clearer legal consequences if they cave and collude.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
You must be logged in to post a comment Login