There are some issues that I need to draw attention to here. The case of Professor David Miller, who was sacked by Bristol University for his anti-Zionist views, is important; he won his final Employment Tribunal appeal against the University this week.
As the BBC has reported:
A university has lost its appeal after a tribunal ruled that it discriminated against an academic by sacking him over his anti-Zionist views and criticism of Israel.
Prof David Miller was dismissed by the University of Bristol in October 2021 on the grounds that he "did not meet the [university's] standards of behaviour".
He successfully appealed against his sacking in 2024 and claimed unfair dismissal, breach of contract and discrimination or victimisation on the grounds of religion or belief.
The University then appealed again, and as the BBC noted:
In a ruling [this week], Lord Fairley, the president of the tribunal, dismissed most of the university's appeal.
He said he saw "no good reason why the beliefs relied upon by the claimant in this case should be excluded from protection simply because they related to an issue of social importance which might, broadly, also be categorised as 'political'".
The BBC did then, rather predictably, give the University all the remaining space in their report, but the true story is available from David Miller in this tweet (and I cannot find it anywhere else):
Full statement on my decisive Employment Appeal Tribunal victory against the Zionist movement, solidifying anti-Zionism as a protected philosophical belief under UK equality law.
People can no longer be discriminated against for their anti-Zionist beliefs. pic.twitter.com/zWktJOO2bn
— David Miller (@Tracking_Power) August 4, 2026
Note that second paragraph. Being an anti-Zionist is now a legally recognised reserved, and so protected, category of belief in discrimination law. You cannot be sacked for holding that position now. David Miller's fight to achieve this outcome has been brave, long and no doubt very costly, but he has changed the UK as a result. I applaud his effort.
And just a thought: doesn't this make it quite difficult to call people terrorists for holding this opinion?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“The Canary” has accounts of this significant matter.
Good. I was finding them hard to find.
This is available here. https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/08/04/miller-appeal-anti-zionism/
Odd that the mainstream media missed it, I don’t think.
So does Media Lens.
“no good reason why the beliefs relied upon by the claimant”………why beliefs? Israel is an apartheid state (an outcome of Zionism). Its non-jewish citizens are second class citizens in every respect (health, education, jobs). This is not “a belief”, this is a reality – it can be proved. Furthermore, the (jewish) Israeli education system is designed to embed apartheid in the Israeli state.
If I was writing this in 1980 and I substituted “South Africa” & “white” for Israel and jew/jewish – it would be greeted with a shrug – why bother stating the obvious & what I said would be regarded as self-evident truths? How times change.
Indeed
Because the protected characteristic is religion or belief. To win Prof Miller had only to prove that he held this belief, not that his belief was true, and he was dismissed for holding that belief. The same law has been used by those believing that gender is determined at birth and is immutable.
I’m anti-zionist not as a “belief” but because of its outcomes – which can be seen and measured. If Zionism consisted of jumping into cold water in fancy dress and throwing kippers @ each other – I’d shrug, find it strange and leave ‘em to get on with it. But it doesn’t – Zionism categorises people and in Israel makes life deeply miserable for a large part of the population who are seen by Zionists as 2nd class citizens based on religion. Thus my anti-zionism (& I’d hazard a guess that of Prof Miller’s) is based on the realities and outcomes of applied zionism, not “beliefs” which in any case cannot be proved or disproved (how many fairies can dance on the point of a pin? I believe the correct number is 10.256).
To be fair, you could not be sacked for holding ‘Anti-Zionist’ or ‘pro-Zionist’ views since at lest 2010, when the Equalities Act came into being. Your religion or belief (or lack of religion or belief) is a protected characteristic. The University would have been aware of this, but tried to get round it by claiming that the misconduct was ‘failing to meet the university’s standards of behaviour. I wonder if the University has realised now that their ‘standards of behaviour are wrong!
The judgment can be read here. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a71b3b8331a9965a2ed46a9/University_of_Bristol_v_Dr_David_Miller__2026__EAT_84.pdf
In fairness, this had not been proven. Now it has been.
The report of the original Employment Tribunal also makes interesting reading. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Miller-judgment-1400780.2022-JDT.pdf
Thanks
Thank you for sharing Richard – this is good know if you are working in the public sector where hushed whispered and sometimes tearful discussions on Zionism are being had because of the fear of trying to discuss it openly.
On the Today program today Rupert Lowe was talking about the Islamification of Britain in a way that was bad for the country. He said it would destroy our identity. It is a common trope these days. The trope says Islam has a plan to take over the country and most politicians are ‘useful idiots’ who expedite this. Indeed are even traitors and some follow Musk who urges conflict in defence of the country.
If we substituted Israeli or Judaism for Islam in that sort of language, we would find ourselves sanctioned. There is a huge hypocrisy here. One that has support from much of the real Establishment, Labour and Conservative front benches, the main stream press, BBC, Universities, much of the legal system, not the ‘Establishment’ invoked by the Far right.
There is one hearing left in the Miller case – the compensation decision in September I think. Expect one final enormous defamatory heave as BU argue that he should get nothing and has been the author of his own misfortune.
Your point about the link between the Miller decision and the “terrorism” stupidity from the Home Office is a valid one but I doubt Shabana will pay attention. If people can’t be sacked for anti-Zionism, they can still be ruined by intimidation, dawn raids, arrests, preventive bail conditions, confiscation and searches of devices, debanking and ruinous legal bills. All of which IS happening. Crispin Flintoff’s latest report on police tactics/arrests/provocateur antics at the last Westminster Magistrates court protest was quite chilling.
Agreed
This was discussed in the Murphy household this morning.
Thanks for that Robert. I took a look @ the Flintoff vid – hard faced rozzers “just following orders” – arresting people for wearing a red tee shirt (obvs trrists see). Burnt-ham just the same as Der-Sturmer supporting the indefensible. Also, Flintoff’s comments about agent-provocateurs filming and claiming to the rozzers that people were saying things they had not – & then getting arrested. As somebody in the crowd said: time “the Brits took back control”……………. from the zionist bunch that seem to be calling the shots. (rozzers – rather than police? police act in the interests of public safety, citizens and the UK as a whole, rozzers act in the interests of zionists).
There may be more hearings The university can appeal to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court (but only on a point of law). I expect they will be under external pressure to do so.
“In dictatorships the media are controlled by the state. In “democracies” the media are controlled by wealthy individuals with political affiliations. Objective media and journalists do not exist in the mainstream.” (From Robert Black)
P.S. Including the B. B. C.?
The BBC are having a field day in the hounding out of a black professor at Cambridge and giving the far right Lowe plenty of air time in an extensive and shambolic interview on the Radio 4 Today programme this morning.
Agreed
Absolutely disgraceful that BBC have given time to prisoner releases, Reform, Rrestore, small boats etc but barely a peep about this<p>
It should have been headline news – but virtually no discussion about what it could mean for all those already ruined by unfettered police powers over protests. We already have hundreds of political prisoners, but more or less total censorship by our Zionist state propaganda institutions
Agreed
My comment to the Zionists is that it looks very much like an own goal.
Jewish News response:
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/david-miller-wins-employment-tribunal-appeal-brought-by-university-of-bristol/
Campaign against Antisemitism (CAA) want government to “remedy” the situation by changing the law on harassment.
“Today’s judgment …now leaves a minefield of contradictory duties for employers and universities in Britain seeking to protect Jewish staff and students. The Government must confront this collision as it implements the new workplace harassment duties this October. Jewish employees and students must not be left to pay the price.”
UK Lawyers For Israel (UKLFI – note -NOT a body regulated by the SRA and unable to act on behalf of clients although the impression is often given that they can https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/law-centre-complains-to-sra-about-uk-lawyers-for-israel/5124227.article ) also are quoted.
Jewish Chronicle have put out a brief factual statement but I imagine there will be more in tomorrow’s print edition. I will report back when I’ve read it. The JC and JN are rescued/owned/run by the same people (with Robbie Gibb, somewhere mysteriously in the background of the ownership, just a year before he joined the BBC Board).
The Israel lobby will now be expecting the government to do whatever is necessary to roll back the practical effect of this judgement. They are not pleased. I suspect Burnham will be getting phone calls.
Bristol University will no doubt also come under pressure to appeal further (and will it be covertly funded to do so?) via Appeal Court and Supreme Court although the grounds available are very narrow and technical and subject to permission.
Thank you
“Jewish employees and students must not be left to pay the price.”……..wot price? to whom?
The only ones I see “paying the price” are the Palestinians living on the west bank or gaza, the price there being – their lives being taken by Israeli jews aka “murder”.
What the newspaper is really arguing for is “look please don’t highlight the murders and genocide committed by the apartheid state of Israel/its citizens” – & if you do – we want to shut you up.
Very good Robert
Here is the JC article:
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/ruling-that-david-miller-was-wrongfully-dismissed-by-university-of-bristol-for-antizionist-beliefs-upheld-bxdo2671
His employers may not be able to sack him, but no longer have to worry, as I expect fairly soon, holding anti Zionist beliefs will be made a terrorist offence.
The same media not discussing Mr Miller, is the one that no longer employs Nadia Sawalha on Loose Women because of her support for the people of Palestine. ITV refuse to comment on the matter.
The state should keep out of religion given the history of the trouble it has caused on these islands and just about everywhere else. Of course, the law must protect any citizen from abuse and discrimination. That duty must be strict and not need even mention religion or any other abstract notion. Pretty much the opening sentence of the US Declaration of Independence.
Personally, I abhor Netanyahu, the various Ayatollahs, Putin, Trump, any terrorist, murderer, sex criminals and a whole host of others, while being a humanist and generally liking most people, even a few Tories.
I agree that the state should keep out of religion (a notion that would not go down well in Israel) but should point out that Zionism is not a religion but an “ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in late 19th century Europe to establish and support a Jewish homeland through colonisation in the region of Palestine.” (Wiki)
Perhaps the legal treatment of anti-Zionism in this case as a belief implies that Zionism is also a belief, which carries a religious connotation, but we should distinguish between Zionism and Judaism.
Richard – thanks for sharing this information. I was not aware of it. I’d be interested in your thoughts on the Green Party’s current debate. There is a motion coming to conference in October – “Zionism is Racism”. Whilst the party is obviously pro-Palestine, there are some (myself included) who worry that passing such a motion will gift the mainstream media an opportunity to accuse us of anti-semitism.
Richard
Thanks for bringing this case to my attention. I agree that David Miller has been vindicated, and I have huge respect for his determination in getting a fair judgement. No one should lose their job for their views, and no one should be accused of terrorism for being ant-Zionist.
The problem with this debate however is that it is very polarising. Zionists will argue that if you are opposed to Zionism, you are denying the right of Israel to exist. For the Jewish people this is obviously a terrifying prospect, given their history.
On the other hand Zionism today does seem to be being used to justify the appalling behaviour of the State of Israel committing genocide, which sadly the UK government is complicit in.
To argue that Zionism is racism continues to polarise the debate, and encourages false claims of anti-semitism, which the mainstream media seems only to eager to whip up.
I think Zack Polanski is putting forward a more nuanced argument, distinguishing between Zionism’s historic origins, which were about the Jewish people seeking a safe, peaceful homeland, and the current actions of the Israeli government.
Rather than arguing over the word, it is much more productive to focus on practical steps to stop the killing and hold the perpetrators of it to account.
Regards…Bob
Israel does exist. That is not the subject of debate. Nor should its borders -as agreed when it was created be.
The antics of the Israeli government are.
They are extending those borders through policies of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and abuse that look like war crimes. Those are what Zionism is now about. They are not related to the existenec of Israel. I think the distinction is key.
I agree absolutely, and those arguing that Zionism is about Israel’s right to exist may well be doing so vexatiously. My point is simply that the media appear to support that vexatious argument and that leads to accusations of anti-semitism. This is often taken at face value by the general public, and thus the opposition to Israel’s war crimes are silenced.
Not quite true. Anti-Zionism is now recognised as a protected belief, but you can still be dismissed because of it if your behaviour or manifestation of it infringes on the rights and freedoms of others,, eg through harassing them at work or trying to unreasonably change the views of others by promoting it.
Whilst this is a good news case we have to be careful in suggesting it provides a “blank cheque” protection. It protects holding the belief from disctimination, but manifesting it remains potentially problematic in the workplace.