Anti-Zionism confirmed as a protected belief

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in the case of University of Bristol versus Dr David Miller, published on 4th August, is a landmark ruling for free speech on Israel and Zionism. We will describe the sequence of legal actions that led to this result. It is the outcome that matters, which is that Anti-Zionism is now a protected belief in law, joining other protected non-religious views such as humanism, environmentalism and gender-critical views.

Lord Fairley, President of the Employment Appeals Tribunal included these words in his judgement on the case:

“It is coherent to describe as “racist” an ideology that promotes the establishment of a state for only one race of people in a territory that contains a large number of people of a different race. 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 ruling means that the expression of anti-Zionist beliefs is now protected in the workplace. Employers will need to be more cautious about pursuing cases based on often spurious allegations of antisemitism. It therefore provides a protection against harassment from which many campaigners against Israeli apartheid, settler colonialism and genocide should now benefit.

Too often employers, sometimes under pressure from pro-Israel campaigns, have taken punitive action on the basis that any anti-Zionist statement is, de facto, antisemitic. In future they will have to prove an antisemitic intent. The result is that the ability of anti-Zionists to make principled criticism of Israeli actions is now greatly enhanced.

Here is the legal history. David Miller was dismissed from his post as a Professor at Bristol University in October 2021.  He took his dismissal to an Employment Tribunal held in late 2023 – and won. But Bristol University appealed that decision, and it is that case, heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, that has now concluded, not just with the rejection of Bristol’s appeal but also with a towering judgement that has wide implications.

The rejection of the University’s appeal doesn’t only mean that they have to pay him damages for loss of employment: a crucial outcome of this decision is that, unlike the initial decision by the Employment Tribunal, the victory at an Employment Appeal  Tribunal sets a legal precedent.

The important principle behind Miller’s case, which was explicitly and emphatically confirmed by the appeal tribunal, is this: Dr Miller had been discriminated against because of his anti-Zionist beliefs, and his anti-Zionism has been recognised as a ‘philosophical belief’ under the Equality Act 2010.

Why on earth did Bristol University persist in pursuing its determination to get rid of Miller despite the advice, twice, from its own legal advisor that there were no grounds for dismissal? Why next insist on appealing the Employment Tribunal’s clear finding against it – an appeal against which it has just lost comprehensively?

Miller’s initial dismissal took place after a ‘pile on’ from right-wing newspapers, Labour’s then Mayor of Bristol, more than 100 MPs and Lords and the Government’s advisor on antisemitism. The establishment clearly wanted blood, and the university, shamefully, tried to deliver it – in a betrayal of academic freedom and free speech.

This campaign has now received its deserved comeuppance. JVL, along with all UK campaigners for Palestine, owe David Miller a major debt of gratitude for his steadfastness in pursuing this case to victory. It is a victory for the whole Palestine support community and in particular for those who have an explicitly anti-Zionist politics.

While we celebrate a notable legal victory, we remain highly critical of many public statements made by David Miller since his sacking by Bristol University. Some of these attribute a very broad and malevolent influence to Jewish power, which we reject out of hand as unfounded and conspiratorial. JVL published a statement on Miller’s postings and also a fuller analysis in 2025.

Throughout we have, though, never wavered from our view that his dismissal was unjust, born of prejudice, and procedurally flawed. We have consistently defended him from the baseless criticisms aimed at him and the assault on his academic freedom. We saw and see these as also having a broader aim of suppressing advocacy for Palestine both on campus and more widely. We celebrate the defeat of this campaign and the now established right to oppose Zionism free of any implication of having an ulterior racist motive.