The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a landmark ruling that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism and constitutes a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. The judgment rejects the University of Bristol’s attempt to overturn the central findings in favour of its former professor, David Miller.
The ruling reinforces a distinction which pro-Palestine campaigners, Jewish anti-Zionists and civil liberties advocates have defended for years: opposition to Zionism as a political ideology is not inherently the same as hostility towards Jewish people.
In its judgment, handed down on today, the EAT upheld the findings that the university’s decision to dismiss Miller and its refusal of his internal appeal constituted unlawful direct discrimination. It also preserved the conclusions that his dismissal was unfair and wrongful.
“ANTI-ZIONISM PROTECTED BY UK LAW”, said Miller following his victory. “Anti-Zionism is now a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. Full stop.




Where did you see that?
The BBC constantly frames anti-zionist speech as anti-Semitic.
Was looking more for a link to an article. If they actually said that about the tribunal, that would be unhinged even by BBC’s standards.
Oh, it’s not supposed to be a real quote.
Yeah, the BBC wouldn’t be so brave as to say that. They would quote a Jewish Lawyer’s Organisation about how “concerning” it is.
Yep they just did
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3qk5qk559o
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/bbc-tells-staff-not-criticise-zionists-antisemitism-training
That doesn’t contain the quote and was released months ago.
It’s not that I disagree with @BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 's sentiment here, I just think it’s bad to misattribute a quote like that, there’s enough misinformation going around as it is.
Because the BBC didn’t write their Zionist article yet.
Here you go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3qk5qk559o
Of course, there it is, they took their time on that one. It does kind of undermine the argument against the BBC though by posting fake quotes while waiting for the actual evidence.
What’s interesting is the BBC article from two years ago about the case contains much less bias.