The Claimant in this case was engaged through an employment agency to provide consultancy services to the Respondent in 2018. He was engaged for three months. The Claimant was informed, before the expiry of his contract, that the agreement was ending due to the Claimant not disclosing an unspent criminal conviction.
The Claimant believed the real reason was his political beliefs. Specifically, his membership of the English Democrat party for which he had stood for election and his belief in English nationalism.
Employment Tribunal
He brought a discrimination claim to the employment tribunal based on the protected characteristic of religion or belief. Not all beliefs can be categorised as a protected characteristic. The tribunal considered that “nationalism that asserts that the English are a nation and promotes the cultural unity of English people. In a general sense, it comprises political and social movements and sentiment inspired by a love for English culture, language and history, and a sense of pride in England and the English people. English nationalists see themselves as predominantly English rather than British.”
The tribunal also considered that the Claimant held anti-Islamic views as part of his English nationalism. Some of the evidence that was considered in relation to this finding was that the Claimant used the hashtag #RemoveAllMuslims on a social media post and had said in a previous tribunal case that Islam should be banned in England unless it was “anglicised” and “toned down”. One of the criteria used to establish if a belief is protected is if it is worthy of respect in a democratic society, and the tribunal considered it was not and was therefore not a protected belief.
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
The Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He argued that his belief in English nationalism should be protected as it was primarily cultural and not racially or religiously motivated.
The Claimant’s appeal was unsuccessful. Protected beliefs must not infringe upon the rights of others, and it was clear that the Claimant’s anti-Islamic views were in opposition to this principle. The EAT expressed the view that his beliefs constituted hate speech and could not be protected.
Comment
This case demonstrates that there is a distinction between legitimate political beliefs and hate speech. A belief in nationalism could be protected but when those beliefs promote ideas such as the removal of religious groups from the country the protection will not apply. This is likely to be relevant if there any tribunal cases arising from the recent riots in England.
If you have any questions on any of the issues raised in the above article, please contact Alan Sutherland.