...

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.

  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
    5·
    7 days ago

    Because the BBC didn’t write their Zionist article yet.

    Here you go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3qk5qk559o

    Miller, who worked at the university as a lecturer of political sociology, attracted criticism for a “false, vile… antisemitic slur” in a lecture in 2019.

    He made further comments against Zionism at a Campaign for Free Speech event in 2021 and was also criticised by the Bristol Jewish Society.

    He later called some Jewish student groups “political lobby groups” and described Jewish students at British universities as “political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing”.

    • anothermember@feddit.ukEnglish
      51·
      7 days ago

      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.