In 2021, David Miller, a sociologist obsessed by a fanatical hatred of Israel and its Jewish supporters, was fired by Britain’s University of Bristol for failing to “meet the standards of behavior we expect from our staff.” Miller, who since then has worked as a regular commentator on Iranian state-sponsored television, sued for wrongful termination. On Monday, the court ruled in his favor on the grounds that his “anti-Zionism” constitutes a “philosophical belief” for which he cannot be legally fired.
Dave Rich clarifies what exactly these beliefs were:
Miller believes that every Jewish organization, synagogue, school, charity, or youth club anywhere in the world that has a connection to Israel must be “dismantled.” He blithely peddles anti-Semitic tropes and treats all but the small minority of Jews who wholly reject Israel as an enemy to be “defeated.” His beliefs, were they to be put into effect, amount to an all-out assault on global Jewish life as currently constituted.
But, as Melanie Phillips explains, Miller did not lose his job because his employer decided that his anti-Zionism amounted to anti-Semitism:
It was Miller who claimed that he was being hounded by “Zionists” because of his views. But the university didn’t find that. It didn’t fire him because of his views about Jews or Israel. In its disciplinary hearing in September 2021, it found that his actions towards students amounted to gross misconduct for which he should be fired.
The hearing was conducted by the Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the time, Professor Jane Norman. In her dismissal notice, she made no reference to Miller’s anti-Zionism. She concluded instead that his sackable offence was to have grossly breached the university’s rules of conduct. . . . He had singled out students and their societies for criticism which was an “abuse of power”; he had connected one such society to “violence, racism, ethnic cleansing, and making other protected groups feel unsafe”; his tone had been “inappropriate” because he had been “seeking to proselytize and convert others” to his cause “and/or to provoke a public reaction”; and he had not shown “any shred of insight into why others might have found your words reprehensible.”
One has to ask, therefore, why the tribunal was so keen to make anti-Zionism the central element of its ruling.
Read more on Melanie Phillips: https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/anti-judaism-becomes-a-protected