David Miller Verdict – Anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace
JVL Introduction
Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, Chair of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine stated: “The dismissal of David Miller from his professorial post at the University of Bristol represented the most extreme case of silencing of a UK academic because of the views he expressed about Israel. It fired the starting gun for a still more aggressive campaign of campus silencing of voices in support of Palestine, a clamp down that has ramped up still further during the war in Gaza. David Miller’s success in his action for wrongful dismissal should now help to empower an effective fightback in support of academic freedom.”
This article was originally published by Rahman Lowe website on Mon 5 Feb 2024. Read the original here.
Rahman Lowe Secures Landmark Victory in Employment Case for Professor David Miller Against Bristol University
In a significant triumph, Rahman Lowe, the legal representative for Professor David Miller, announced a landmark decision on Tuesday 5th February 2024 in one of the most closely monitored Employment Tribunal cases of 2023-2024. Prof. Miller successfully claimed discrimination based on his philosophical belief that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, alongside a finding of unfair dismissal. This judgment establishes for the first time ever that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace.
In the comprehensive 108-page judgment delivered today (see here) by Regional Employment Judge Rohan Pirani, the Bristol Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of Prof. Miller, establishing that he had experienced discrimination based on his philosophical belief and had been unfairly dismissed by Bristol University.
Professor Miller is an academic sociologist, specialising in state and corporate propaganda, public relations and lobbying. He was employed by the University of Bristol as a Professor of Political Sociology, and he continued working for the University until he was dismissed on 1 October 2021.
The case has drawn attention to the challenges faced by academics and individuals advocating for justice, fairness, and equality in Palestine. It also underscores the issue of weaponising antisemitism to stifle discussions on Zionism.
For further details about the background to this claim, please read our earlier article, here.
Rahman Lowe’s partner Zillur Rahman, who has represented Prof Miller, said
“This is a landmark case and marks a pivotal moment in the history of our country for those who believe in upholding the rights of Palestinians. The timing of this Judgment will be welcomed by many who at present are facing persecution in their workplaces for speaking out against the crimes of the Israeli state, and the genocide taking place in Gaza.
I am delighted for our client, David, who has been vindicated. His courage in fighting against the vicious campaign that was waged against him by Zionists within and outside the university, now sees him as a trailblazer for others that will follow. What is interesting about this case is that when David expressed his beliefs about Zionism which led to him being dismissed, they weren’t that widely known. However, the genocide Israel is committing at present, has woken the world up to the very belief David holds and was manifesting, which is that Zionism is inherently racist and must be opposed.
Whilst I am happy for David, it is clear that what took place has had, and will continue to have an impact on his career and therefore, we will be seeking for maximum compensation.”
Prof Miller said:
“I am extremely pleased that the Tribunal has concluded that I was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by the University of Bristol. I am also very proud that we have managed to establish that anti-Zionist views qualify as a protected belief under the UK Equality Act. This was the most important reason for taking the case and I hope it will become a touchstone precedent in all the future battles that we face with the racist and genocidal ideology of Zionism and the movement to which it is attached.
The determination that I was sacked for my anti-Zionist views is a huge vindication of my case all the way through this process. The University of Bristol maintained that I was sacked because Zionist students were offended by my various remarks, but it was plain from the evidence of its own witnesses that this was untrue, and it was the anti-Zionist nature of my comments which was the decisive factor.
I also want to note that this verdict is a massive vindication of the approach I have taken throughout this period which is to say that a genocidal and maximalist ideology like Zionism can only be effectively confronted by a maximalist anti-Zionism. Apologies, debate, and defensiveness of the sort illustrated by many on the left, and even in the Palestine Solidarity movement will not work. The Zionist movement cannot be negotiated with. It must be defeated.
I want to thank the court, Regional Employment Judge Pirani and the two panellists Ms Kaye and Mr Launder for the professional way that proceedings were conducted.
I want to thank my legal team Zillur Rahman of Rahman Lowe and Zac Sammour of 11KBW for their strong commitment to defending the right to be anti-Zionist from the outset”.
“Anti-Zionism is a Philosophical belief”.
Well, this is an improvement, and better than nothing.
But it seems it has taken us 50 years – blocked by corporate media misinformation in hand with the Israel lobby – to merely return to something near the anti-racist standards of the 1970s/80s. In 1975 UN Resolution 3379 defined the white colonial ideology of Zionism as a form of racism.
This type of sensibility was not just applied to Israel. This was about the time that Hollywood started to abandon celebrating in cinema, the quasi-religious ‘Manifest Destiny’ holocaust of the Native America peoples. Few people were buying the Apartheid South African claim that its offences were justified because ‘this was the land promised in the book of Joshua’. Generally, whatever the religion of the perpetuator, promised land colonial ideologies were regarded at best primitively eccentric and usually racist and offensive.
Spain was the original top-dog in the slavery and colonial gravy-train, when it realised what it was onto it made all its territories inclusively Catholic. No one was retrospectively thinking religion was an excuse for the brutalities of the Spanish Empire either.
Btw UN Resolution 3379 stood for 16yrs until 1991 when the US used its diplomatic leverage to have it overturned. The US then – as now – still operating a Reservation System for Native Americans with some treaty claims still unresolved, and presiding over an ongoing Black human rights crisis.
I am delighted that David Miller has won this landmark judgment in the face of a vicious and dishonest attack on academic freedom and the unprincipled cowardice of his employer. The details of the judgment are scathing of the University and provide an interesting comparison with the different way in which the University treated an allegation of Islamopobia against another professor.
However in the interests of the intellectual honesty championed by JVL, I must point out that the undisciplined and inaccurate language which Miller has used to express his anti-Zionist views has caused considerable damage to the Palestinian cause, needlessly dividing its supporters, and thereby delighting crusaders for the apartheid state. Such carelessness or stupidity might be forgiven a poorly educated activist, but for a university professor it is unforgivable. The reader may consult the pages on JVL’s website from August 2023:
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/statement/david-miller-has-crossed-a-line/
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/david-miller-bricup/
I note that the tribunal decided that any compensation awarded to Miller would be reduced by half because the claimant’s dismissal “was caused or contributed to by his own actions”. Furthermore the tribunal considered that there was a 30% chance that, had Miller still been employed, the University would have fairly dismissed him as a consequence of the August 2023 social media comments referenced above.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Miller-judgment-1400780.2022-JDT.pdf
David Miller’s worldview has ethnocentric manichean tendencies which preclude any true understanding of capitalist socio-economic relations.
Great news, although sadly the CAA doesn’t appear to think so (no doubt along with the JLM and the BoD and the LAA and the CST and the Jewish newspapers et al).
What *I* can’t understand though – as with so many, many other cases – is why the CAA didn’t report him to the police if they believed that certain remarks he made were antisemitic. And/or any of the other Jewish groups and organisations for that matter. I just can’t fathom it, but there MUST be some reason!
https://antisemitism.org/caa-reacts-to-judgment-of-employment-tribunal-in-david-miller-case/
Israel’s attacks on Gaza and South Africa’s legal victory at the International Court of Justice have shocked many nations into reappraising the most brutal political consequences of Zionism. They don’t like what they now see. Accordingly, there seems to be a new readiness to take action against the “Zionism in action” of the Israeli government.
7 Feb web gleanings:-
From PressTV (a UK company):-
“after the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling last month that said Israel’s mass killings of Palestinians in Gaza a 00 list of the world’s largest companies, announced its aviation arm is ending its memorandum of understanding (MOU), or a formal agreement for two parties to collaborate, with Elbit, the Israeli regime largest military contractor.
…. In a similar move, Spain’s Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares declared on Tuesday that Madrid had suspended all arms exports to Israel since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza on October 7”.
From “Libya Observer”:-
“A Libyan delegation participated in a coordination meeting at the headquarters of the Palestinian Embassy in the Netherlands on Monday, in preparation for legal arguments before the International Court of Justice in The Hague in support of the Palestinian cause against the Israeli occupation.
… Libya will present its case before the International Court of Justice on Thursday, February 22”.
Israel is now (belatedly) investigating the IDF for war crimes. Is Israel’s new interest in the IDF’s alleged wrongdoings a response to the increasing global pressure against its GOVERNMENT?
In response to Allan Howard’s comment. I think the pro Zionists, like Mcartheyites (is that spelled right?) before them, if they get the police involved then a proper investigation is carried out and it quickly reveals that there is no crime. They can’t withstand the light of reason.
That’s a relief in more ways than one.
I can’t help wondering, however, whether they would have won six months ago.
Reading the case report, I would have thought that Prof Miller has numerous grounds for suing Jsoc members for libel…..”a vile anti semite”?
” The University of Bristol maintained that I was sacked because Zionist students were offended by my various remarks, but it was plain from the evidence of its own witnesses that this was untrue, and it was the anti-Zionist nature of my comments which was the decisive factor.” Professor Miller summarizes thus. But Zionist and other chauvinist actors, including students, make a point of being offended. Their taking ‘offense’ is a choice, often a useful step in building a career. It should be of no consequence. Further, however, if Jewish students report hurt feelings, why should this be of general concern? Professor Miller concedes too much in these comments. NB Professor Miller should not be confused with the Professor Miller who wrote in his ‘Nationality’ (Oxford 1975, repub frequently) on p 2 to the effect that, perhaps rather than their own state, Palestinians might hope for Israeli protection….’ published 27 years after the Nakba; now in the days of the Zionist offensive against all the people of Gaza and against most of the legitimate residents of the West Bank, one wonders what THIS Professor Miller’s concept of genocide actually is….or indeed ‘protection’….
I am particularly pleased by the Miller judgement as its implications are far-reaching.
It blows out of the water all the humbug and false accusations that flow from the appalling IHRA definition and we should not hesitate to use the judgement to disarm the perpetrators of such falsehoods.
Professor David Miller could maybe have expressed himself more clearly at times, but now is not the time to be pedantic about semantics. 100,000 dead, injured or missing Palestinians in Gaza, plus thousands in the West Bank, need to hear our voices and support as one right now.
In response to Alexander Gavin’s comment, I would only point out that despite Zionist claims about ‘hurt’ it is very difficult to find victims.
On the other hand, named victims of police BLM deaths, violence and harassment are easy to find. There’s similarly no Zionist version of Windrush deportations.
We’ve yet to hear of Zionist equivalents of Bishopsbriggs Mosque arson attack, the firebomb attack at Finsbury Park Mosque and the van attack there on worshippers killing one and injuring 9 others.
There’s no Zionist equivalent to 82yr old Grandad Muhammad Saleem being stabbed to death with his attacker planting the firebombs at further mosques. These offences occured after the mobilisation of New Labour’s Muslim collective guilt narrative.
Recently Maureen Lipman appeared on Sky News suggesting to an indulgent interviewer that Briton was unsafe for Jews.
By contrast the ambience was one of indulging an amusing eccentric, when in the late Benjamin Zephaniah’s last interview on the Jeremy Vine show he attempted to describe the structural nature of western racism.
In my observation the hierarchy of Bristol University behaved deplorably. After various procedures failed to find relevant facts against David Miller, or exonerated him, the University hierarchy sacked him without sound reason.
Bristol University wasted lots of public money and lowered its reputation. I think that the University would be very ill advised to take the issue further.
I knew that David Miller had not always expressed himself in the best way. An obvious reason, I suggest, was bitterness over his deplorable treatment.
The Union of Jewish Students seems to be highly Zionist in a narrow way. It appears to be far more representative of the extremist government of Israel than the diversity of its members which include Palestinian sympathisers.
It just occurred to me to check out the Jewish Chronicle, and they posted the following article by David Hersh yesterday:
The David Miller ruling risks protecting antisemites
On Monday, an Employment Tribunal found that David Miller’s dismissal by Bristol University “was caused or contributed to by his own actions”, but it also found that the university had unfairly dismissed him…..
The tribunal also determined that Miller’s “anti-Zionist beliefs qualified… as a protected characteristic”, were ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society”, were not “incompatible with human dignity” and did “not conflict with the fundamental rights of others”.
Miller has stated that: “To dismantle the regime, every single Zionist organisation, the world over, needs to be ended. Every. Single. One.”
To “dismantle the regime” means to dismantle the state of Israel. That means to dismantle the Jewish capacity for self-defence in Israel; to dismantle Israel’s ability to prevent more attacks like the one on October 7……
And so it goes on!
https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/the-david-miller-ruling-risks-protecting-antisemites-against-jews-rce5l93z
The most interesting point was that the University did not dispute the finding of Aileen McColgan KC that nothing said by Professor Miller was antisemitic. The alternative argument that he said things that were “incompatible with the rights of others and/or unworthy of respect in a democratic society” was also dismissed fairly robustly by the Tribunal. The criticisms of Professor Miller which were partially upheld related not to the substance of his opinions but to his manner of expressing them.
This is important as many of his comments, particularly about the racist nature of the Israeli state, would certainly appear antisemitic under the IHRA definition. The value of an Employment Tribunal decision as a precedent is very limited but if its principles are applied it would seem that any university or other organization adopting the IHRA definition could be accused of harassment of people with a protected characteristic (i.e. anti-Zionist beliefs) by exposing them to an intimidating, hostile and degrading environment in which they were systematically vulnerable to false accusations of antisemitism.
It is worth noting that the Tribunal decision also implicitly rejects the position taken by the ECHR report on antisemitism in the Labour Party that anything said which any Jewish person finds offensive or distressing is ipso facto antisemitic.
The Tribunal’s criticisms of Professor Miller’s undoubtedly aggressive responses are based largely on the principle that in a dispute between a professor and student the former, being in a position of power, ought to show restraint. This is a good principle but one might question whether it applies where the students are publicly supported by a large and vocal group of powerful political and media figures including at least one Government minister.